Why would a picture frame be running windows vista?
Then again, it's a DED photoshop job, so it's possible he just added that.
Lol! Yeah, I don't remember that . . . Menu? Desktop? My client had it hung on a wall running a slideshow of dog pics.
Quote:
I OWN a galaxy tab. (the gray one) there is defiantly a texture on it (it looks a bit like burnished metal) It's not a huge texture, but you can feel it.
OK, maybe is should have said: "A hell of a lot more texturized"
That's sort of scary actually; I own several SLR's (digital and film), and they almost all fall into the same design characteristics: black, pentaprism or pentamirror, hand grip on the right...only differences are the lens mounts and hardware/firmware. It's a natural design, but everyone uses their lens and features to differentiate themselves.
Same goes for LCD TV's - they all look basically the same, but no one is suing each other. The differences lay in the features and price.
Lol! Yeah, I don't remember that . . . Menu? Desktop? My client had it hung on a wall running a slideshow of dog pics.
For a 2006 digital picture frame, it was really pretty capable. An 800x400 display, 32MB of internal memory, SD, CF and USB support for memory expansion, and Ethernet for networking. Formats supported include JPEG, MP3, and MPEG-4.
Same goes for LCD TV's - they all look basically the same, but no one is suing each other. The differences lay in the features and price.
I purchased two flat screen TV's last year in a one month period. All of them had some kind of visual/design difference. Speaker positions, placement of ports, logo visibility, etc. I ended up purchasing the same brand for each but in different sizes because I liked it look and the menu UI.
Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.
Fortunately you are not running apple! Why in the world would you license someone to copy the best selling, and most profitable, electronic products in the world?
I purchased two flat screen TV's last year in a one month period. All of them had some kind of visual/design difference. Speaker positions, placement of ports, logo visibility, etc. I ended up purchasing the same brand for each but in different sizes because I liked it look and the menu UI.
Yeah, but if you look at the Apple drawing that the German judge used, it's a very generic tablet design. Almost all LCD's I've seen and used are flat screens surrounded by a black bezel, speakers on the bottom or side, buttons on the top or side. know my Sony Bravia doesn't look like a Panasonic or Samsung TV, but they all basically have a screen surrounded by a black bezel. They vary in the lighting, panel type, thickness, and software.
The Tab has a different texture on the back compared to the iPad, and IIRC, the buttons are in different positions, and Honeycomb looks nothing like iOS, but the German judge didn't even look at either product, they based their ruling on a drawing.
If it was such a generic design, why did it take Samsung many many years, and several other design choices before they developed this? Was it just a coincidence that tablets started looking exactly like the iPad immediately after the iPad was shown to be successful?
Now, I am not entirely sure about the whole "Design Rights" idea, but can they at least try to pretend to not ape Apple?
Blah.... I always thought it was funnier when it was called "chimping".
The problem is, however, with a design patent so vague, so minimal...who CAN'T be sued? HTC Flyer? Hell, I'm sure even Sony's wedge tablet can be sued somehow.
You know the article you are posting in response to?
If you bothered to read it and comprehend it, you'd realise your bullish*t won't fly, not even with the judge, making the decision who is quoted in the third paragraph, which I'll post here because you obviously missed it:-
"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible," Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict.
You know the article you are posting in response to?
If you bothered to read it and comprehend it, you'd realise your bullish*t won't fly, not even with the judge, making the decision who is quoted in the third paragraph, which I'll post here because you obviously missed it:-
"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible," Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict.
OTHER DESIGNS ARE POSSIBLE
Guess what Hill60. . .
Apple has received design patents on most other possible slate designs as well. Wedge shape, narrow bezel? Nope, belongs to Apple. Widen the bezel then. Sorry, belongs to Apple. No Bezel? Apple again. Recessed screen? Yup, Apple too. Narrower bezel, more squared off corners? Still Apple. Offset the screen towards the top, bezel at the bottom. Might as well quit trying, that design is claimed by Apple too. I've put all the reference numbers in my last post if anyone doubts this.
This is where the lengths that Apple has gone to assure themselves of no competition becomes obvious to me. None of the other tablet/slate designs are used by Apple. Most were filed back in 2008, around the time the iPad was finalized. To go before that same German judge to get one of the unused designs they laid claim to enforced they don't have to show they ever made a product that resembles it. They only need to submit evidence that the line drawings in the patent resemble a competitors product. .
Hmmm. . .If they never built a device that resembles the line drawings in a design patent, why did Apple claim the design anyway? IMHO, this is the likely answer, at least in part.
Any manufacturer who is considering the build of a slate/tablet computer is going to have to consider the possibility that Apple will drag out one of it's numerous registered designs to claim infringement. Is it really worth investing in the tablet market when the market leader has a demonstrated penchant for lawsuits and pockets so deep that losing won't matter and isn't the point anyway. By the time the suit is over the damage is done and the iPad is the last man standing. Potentially pay out a few million in damages? Big deal with billions to be made selling the iPad with no competition.
Is it worth a company-wide commitment to produce a great quality innovative slate with the fear hanging in the air that the ownership of a simple vague pencil drawing of an un-produced product is proven capable of banning you from the market?
A competing device does not have to resemble the iPad at all. It just needs to resemble some set of line drawings that Apple lays claim to for it to be subject to a sales injunction. No one knows if Apple will go that far. Perhaps they might or perhaps not but they've laid claim to the right, and that's where the anti-competitive danger is.
Apple didn't write the law, but this was never the law's intent either.
Apple only used that community design against Samsung. They don't seem to think it applies for their other lawsuits against Motorola and HTC. There is no reason to believe the Apple want to have a monopoly on rectangular tablets with touch screen.
Except that if this stands, there's absolutely nothing stopping from Apple doing so....just the knowledge that over-reaching could have far ranging political consequences (ie. reform not in their favour).
Keep in mind this also prevents any homegrown manufacturers from making tablets. Indeed, one of the companies appealing along with Samsung is a small German manufacturer.
I have read some of those threads and while others may grumble, I don't. If there is prior art or the patent is invalidated, great. If not, too bad so sad pay the dude.
Perhaps that's where we differ. I don't like stupid lawsuits. From or against Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
You are taking one component (camera) out of the whole. Samsung didn't just use a lower spec camera to make it thinner. It changed the back significantly to look more like an Apple product.
Even if they did though, these are different product categories. For example, should Apple get sued by Leica for admittedly making the iPhone 4 look like one of their old cameras? (a design which I love by the way) And again, this wasn't even a trade dress lawsuit which could (though it's still a long shot because of different product categories and timelines) make this relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.
I have German relatives who I should prompt to write on my befalf! :-)
In any case, this is a rather unfair line for a discussion forum. The whole point of forums like this is so we can discuss events like this. Are you as dismissive of people everywhere if you just don't agree with them?
The funniest part was all the fandriods saying "well there's only so many ways you can make a tablet, it's just a piece of glass with a bezel"
But the problem with that argument is that if these designs are so obvious, why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?
Everything Apple does seems "obvious" and "generic" to Apple competitors, after Apple releases it and sells millions of units....but if it really was, they would have been the first to market and not the ones trying to play catch up.
The Beatles' music is like this. Hella easy to play and learn but that's not the point. They were the first to make it. Anyone can replicate it but it will always only be a copy. The genius was in its creation not how difficult it was to create. Btw, while most people identify with John, Paul was/is the true genius.
In any case, this is a rather unfair line for a discussion forum. The whole point of forums like this is so we can discuss events like this. Are you as dismissive of people everywhere if you just don't agree with them?
Of course not, but I expect at the very least SOME variety in argument. When some have given reasons of why this case was brought about, the response has pretty much consistently been, "That neither here nor there. It's wrong! It's a rectangle!". Well, OK, but Apple went about this through legal means so saying it's wrong over and over doesn't matter unless you (general you not you in particular) are going to try and change it or even discuss how you'd change it.
Either way, I'm not feeling sorry for a multi-billion dollar corporation that screwed over one of it's largest vendors just because it hasn't invested in industrial design nor have it's own design language (Samsung is notorious for ripping others' designs and not just Apple's).
Apple has received design patents on most other possible slate designs as well. Wedge shape, narrow bezel? Nope, belongs to Apple. Widen the bezel then. Sorry, belongs to Apple. No Bezel? Apple again. Recessed screen? Yup, Apple too. Narrower bezel, more squared off corners? Still Apple. Offset the screen towards the top, bezel at the bottom. Might as well quit trying, that design is claimed by Apple too. I've put all the reference numbers in my last post if anyone doubts this.
This is where the lengths that Apple has gone to assure themselves of no competition becomes obvious to me. None of the other tablet/slate designs are used by Apple. Most were filed back in 2008, around the time the iPad was finalized. To go before that same German judge to get one of the unused designs they laid claim to enforced they don't have to show they ever made a product that resembles it. They only need to submit evidence that the line drawings in the patent resemble a competitors product. .
Hmmm. . .If they never built a device that resembles the line drawings in a design patent, why did Apple claim the design anyway? IMHO, this is the likely answer, at least in part.
Any manufacturer who is considering the build of a slate/tablet computer is going to have to consider the possibility that Apple will drag out one of it's numerous registered designs to claim infringement. Is it really worth investing in the tablet market when the market leader has a demonstrated penchant for lawsuits and pockets so deep that losing won't matter and isn't the point anyway. By the time the suit is over the damage is done and the iPad is the last man standing. Potentially pay out a few million in damages? Big deal with billions to be made selling the iPad with no competition.
Is it worth a company-wide commitment to produce a great quality innovative slate with the fear hanging in the air that the ownership of a simple vague pencil drawing of an un-produced product is proven capable of banning you from the market?
A competing device does not have to resemble the iPad at all. It just needs to resemble some set of line drawings that Apple lays claim to for it to be subject to a sales injunction. No one knows if Apple will go that far. Perhaps they might or perhaps not but they've laid claim to the right, and that's where the anti-competitive danger is.
Apple didn't write the law, but this was never the law's intent either.
I found a snippet of an interesting article at Ars Technica:
Quote:
Apple would love us to believe it's all "Eureka." But Apple produces 10 pixel-perfect prototypes for each feature. They compete — and are winnowed down to three, then one, resulting in a highly evolved winner. Because Apple knows the more you compete inside, the less you'll have to compete outside.
If Apple makes 10 competing prototypes which compete against each other to be the final released product, I can see why Apple would register each one hence the number of community designs (if what you state is correct). That also doesn't mean that the other 9 prototypes are completely left to die since they can be refined and modified for a different release (think iPod line). I can't fault Apple for actually investing in industrial design but I CAN fault other companies who do not and then cry "Unfair!"
The Beatles' music is like this. Hella easy to play and learn but that's not the point. They were the first to make it. Anyone can replicate it but it will always only be a copy. The genius was in its creation not how difficult it was to create. Btw, while most people identify with John, Paul was/is the true genius.
Name one song Paul wrote post Beatles that is better than Imagine.
Comments
That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)
Isn't that the rule of thumb in design?
"If your photo frame is so complex that it needs an OS, you did it wrong."
Maybe I'm mixing phrases.
That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)
Huh? Those ports are to transfer and store the photos. One of my old clients has one. That's a digital picture frame.
Huh? Those ports are to transfer and store the photos. One of my old clients has one. That's a digital picture frame.
Why would a picture frame be running windows vista?
Then again, it's a DED photoshop job, so it's possible he just added that.
Why would a picture frame be running windows vista?
Then again, it's a DED photoshop job, so it's possible he just added that.
Lol! Yeah, I don't remember that . . . Menu? Desktop? My client had it hung on a wall running a slideshow of dog pics.
I OWN a galaxy tab. (the gray one) there is defiantly a texture on it (it looks a bit like burnished metal) It's not a huge texture, but you can feel it.
OK, maybe is should have said: "A hell of a lot more texturized"
Apparently the judge issued this ruling based on the drawings in the design patent and not the actual device.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-10-1-ban.html
That's sort of scary actually; I own several SLR's (digital and film), and they almost all fall into the same design characteristics: black, pentaprism or pentamirror, hand grip on the right...only differences are the lens mounts and hardware/firmware. It's a natural design, but everyone uses their lens and features to differentiate themselves.
Same goes for LCD TV's - they all look basically the same, but no one is suing each other. The differences lay in the features and price.
Lol! Yeah, I don't remember that . . . Menu? Desktop? My client had it hung on a wall running a slideshow of dog pics.
For a 2006 digital picture frame, it was really pretty capable. An 800x400 display, 32MB of internal memory, SD, CF and USB support for memory expansion, and Ethernet for networking. Formats supported include JPEG, MP3, and MPEG-4.
Same goes for LCD TV's - they all look basically the same, but no one is suing each other. The differences lay in the features and price.
I purchased two flat screen TV's last year in a one month period. All of them had some kind of visual/design difference. Speaker positions, placement of ports, logo visibility, etc. I ended up purchasing the same brand for each but in different sizes because I liked it look and the menu UI.
Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.
Fortunately you are not running apple! Why in the world would you license someone to copy the best selling, and most profitable, electronic products in the world?
I purchased two flat screen TV's last year in a one month period. All of them had some kind of visual/design difference. Speaker positions, placement of ports, logo visibility, etc. I ended up purchasing the same brand for each but in different sizes because I liked it look and the menu UI.
Yeah, but if you look at the Apple drawing that the German judge used, it's a very generic tablet design. Almost all LCD's I've seen and used are flat screens surrounded by a black bezel, speakers on the bottom or side, buttons on the top or side. know my Sony Bravia doesn't look like a Panasonic or Samsung TV, but they all basically have a screen surrounded by a black bezel. They vary in the lighting, panel type, thickness, and software.
The Tab has a different texture on the back compared to the iPad, and IIRC, the buttons are in different positions, and Honeycomb looks nothing like iOS, but the German judge didn't even look at either product, they based their ruling on a drawing.
If it was such a generic design, why did it take Samsung many many years, and several other design choices before they developed this? Was it just a coincidence that tablets started looking exactly like the iPad immediately after the iPad was shown to be successful?
Now, I am not entirely sure about the whole "Design Rights" idea, but can they at least try to pretend to not ape Apple?
Blah.... I always thought it was funnier when it was called "chimping".
http://maypalo.com/2011/08/22/samsun...-ipad-picture/
The problem is, however, with a design patent so vague, so minimal...who CAN'T be sued? HTC Flyer? Hell, I'm sure even Sony's wedge tablet can be sued somehow.
You know the article you are posting in response to?
If you bothered to read it and comprehend it, you'd realise your bullish*t won't fly, not even with the judge, making the decision who is quoted in the third paragraph, which I'll post here because you obviously missed it:-
"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible," Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict.
OTHER DESIGNS ARE POSSIBLE
You know the article you are posting in response to?
If you bothered to read it and comprehend it, you'd realise your bullish*t won't fly, not even with the judge, making the decision who is quoted in the third paragraph, which I'll post here because you obviously missed it:-
"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible," Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict.
OTHER DESIGNS ARE POSSIBLE
Guess what Hill60. . .
Apple has received design patents on most other possible slate designs as well. Wedge shape, narrow bezel? Nope, belongs to Apple. Widen the bezel then. Sorry, belongs to Apple. No Bezel? Apple again. Recessed screen? Yup, Apple too. Narrower bezel, more squared off corners? Still Apple. Offset the screen towards the top, bezel at the bottom. Might as well quit trying, that design is claimed by Apple too. I've put all the reference numbers in my last post if anyone doubts this.
This is where the lengths that Apple has gone to assure themselves of no competition becomes obvious to me. None of the other tablet/slate designs are used by Apple. Most were filed back in 2008, around the time the iPad was finalized. To go before that same German judge to get one of the unused designs they laid claim to enforced they don't have to show they ever made a product that resembles it. They only need to submit evidence that the line drawings in the patent resemble a competitors product. .
Hmmm. . .If they never built a device that resembles the line drawings in a design patent, why did Apple claim the design anyway? IMHO, this is the likely answer, at least in part.
Any manufacturer who is considering the build of a slate/tablet computer is going to have to consider the possibility that Apple will drag out one of it's numerous registered designs to claim infringement. Is it really worth investing in the tablet market when the market leader has a demonstrated penchant for lawsuits and pockets so deep that losing won't matter and isn't the point anyway. By the time the suit is over the damage is done and the iPad is the last man standing. Potentially pay out a few million in damages? Big deal with billions to be made selling the iPad with no competition.
Is it worth a company-wide commitment to produce a great quality innovative slate with the fear hanging in the air that the ownership of a simple vague pencil drawing of an un-produced product is proven capable of banning you from the market?
A competing device does not have to resemble the iPad at all. It just needs to resemble some set of line drawings that Apple lays claim to for it to be subject to a sales injunction. No one knows if Apple will go that far. Perhaps they might or perhaps not but they've laid claim to the right, and that's where the anti-competitive danger is.
Apple didn't write the law, but this was never the law's intent either.
Apple only used that community design against Samsung. They don't seem to think it applies for their other lawsuits against Motorola and HTC. There is no reason to believe the Apple want to have a monopoly on rectangular tablets with touch screen.
Except that if this stands, there's absolutely nothing stopping from Apple doing so....just the knowledge that over-reaching could have far ranging political consequences (ie. reform not in their favour).
Keep in mind this also prevents any homegrown manufacturers from making tablets. Indeed, one of the companies appealing along with Samsung is a small German manufacturer.
I have read some of those threads and while others may grumble, I don't. If there is prior art or the patent is invalidated, great. If not, too bad so sad pay the dude.
Perhaps that's where we differ. I don't like stupid lawsuits. From or against Apple.
You are taking one component (camera) out of the whole. Samsung didn't just use a lower spec camera to make it thinner. It changed the back significantly to look more like an Apple product.
Even if they did though, these are different product categories. For example, should Apple get sued by Leica for admittedly making the iPhone 4 look like one of their old cameras? (a design which I love by the way) And again, this wasn't even a trade dress lawsuit which could (though it's still a long shot because of different product categories and timelines) make this relevant.
As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.
I have German relatives who I should prompt to write on my befalf! :-)
In any case, this is a rather unfair line for a discussion forum. The whole point of forums like this is so we can discuss events like this. Are you as dismissive of people everywhere if you just don't agree with them?
Finally, common sense prevails.
The funniest part was all the fandriods saying "well there's only so many ways you can make a tablet, it's just a piece of glass with a bezel"
But the problem with that argument is that if these designs are so obvious, why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?
Everything Apple does seems "obvious" and "generic" to Apple competitors, after Apple releases it and sells millions of units....but if it really was, they would have been the first to market and not the ones trying to play catch up.
The Beatles' music is like this. Hella easy to play and learn but that's not the point. They were the first to make it. Anyone can replicate it but it will always only be a copy. The genius was in its creation not how difficult it was to create. Btw, while most people identify with John, Paul was/is the true genius.
In any case, this is a rather unfair line for a discussion forum. The whole point of forums like this is so we can discuss events like this. Are you as dismissive of people everywhere if you just don't agree with them?
Of course not, but I expect at the very least SOME variety in argument. When some have given reasons of why this case was brought about, the response has pretty much consistently been, "That neither here nor there. It's wrong! It's a rectangle!". Well, OK, but Apple went about this through legal means so saying it's wrong over and over doesn't matter unless you (general you not you in particular) are going to try and change it or even discuss how you'd change it.
Either way, I'm not feeling sorry for a multi-billion dollar corporation that screwed over one of it's largest vendors just because it hasn't invested in industrial design nor have it's own design language (Samsung is notorious for ripping others' designs and not just Apple's).
Guess what Hill60. . .
Apple has received design patents on most other possible slate designs as well. Wedge shape, narrow bezel? Nope, belongs to Apple. Widen the bezel then. Sorry, belongs to Apple. No Bezel? Apple again. Recessed screen? Yup, Apple too. Narrower bezel, more squared off corners? Still Apple. Offset the screen towards the top, bezel at the bottom. Might as well quit trying, that design is claimed by Apple too. I've put all the reference numbers in my last post if anyone doubts this.
This is where the lengths that Apple has gone to assure themselves of no competition becomes obvious to me. None of the other tablet/slate designs are used by Apple. Most were filed back in 2008, around the time the iPad was finalized. To go before that same German judge to get one of the unused designs they laid claim to enforced they don't have to show they ever made a product that resembles it. They only need to submit evidence that the line drawings in the patent resemble a competitors product. .
Hmmm. . .If they never built a device that resembles the line drawings in a design patent, why did Apple claim the design anyway? IMHO, this is the likely answer, at least in part.
Any manufacturer who is considering the build of a slate/tablet computer is going to have to consider the possibility that Apple will drag out one of it's numerous registered designs to claim infringement. Is it really worth investing in the tablet market when the market leader has a demonstrated penchant for lawsuits and pockets so deep that losing won't matter and isn't the point anyway. By the time the suit is over the damage is done and the iPad is the last man standing. Potentially pay out a few million in damages? Big deal with billions to be made selling the iPad with no competition.
Is it worth a company-wide commitment to produce a great quality innovative slate with the fear hanging in the air that the ownership of a simple vague pencil drawing of an un-produced product is proven capable of banning you from the market?
A competing device does not have to resemble the iPad at all. It just needs to resemble some set of line drawings that Apple lays claim to for it to be subject to a sales injunction. No one knows if Apple will go that far. Perhaps they might or perhaps not but they've laid claim to the right, and that's where the anti-competitive danger is.
Apple didn't write the law, but this was never the law's intent either.
I found a snippet of an interesting article at Ars Technica:
Apple would love us to believe it's all "Eureka." But Apple produces 10 pixel-perfect prototypes for each feature. They compete — and are winnowed down to three, then one, resulting in a highly evolved winner. Because Apple knows the more you compete inside, the less you'll have to compete outside.
If Apple makes 10 competing prototypes which compete against each other to be the final released product, I can see why Apple would register each one hence the number of community designs (if what you state is correct). That also doesn't mean that the other 9 prototypes are completely left to die since they can be refined and modified for a different release (think iPod line). I can't fault Apple for actually investing in industrial design but I CAN fault other companies who do not and then cry "Unfair!"
The Beatles' music is like this. Hella easy to play and learn but that's not the point. They were the first to make it. Anyone can replicate it but it will always only be a copy. The genius was in its creation not how difficult it was to create. Btw, while most people identify with John, Paul was/is the true genius.
Name one song Paul wrote post Beatles that is better than Imagine.
Name one song Paul wrote post Beatles that is better than Imagine.
Seriously though, I'm astounded that The Beatles '1' album is still #1 on iTS list of albums.