I can prop as much as you'd be pleased about the fact that Apple leads a trend in industrial design: minimalistic and yet premium look and feel.
And that fact itself gives them competitive advantages.
People already know what Apple creates, how Apple products look like, and who is KIRF-ing.
Sure, they were the first manufacturer that actually created a tablet that looks like prototypes/concept designs that were introduced long before in movies and tv shows.
Just because they did so first, Apple claims that they should have exclusive control over the design and the trend.
WTF?
Hey a Tablet is still a Tablet. Looking good Tablet is one thing, and the other manufacturers can follow the good looking tablet design cues and that creates a tablet design trend.
and let's be honest.
Apple INVENTED NO SHIT. A Patent right is for protecting Innovations.
What Apple wanted to protect from their design is their trademark.
And Apple should've registered their design as a trademark which would be much more reluctantly give preliminary injunctions for infringements.
Again, Apple VASTLY IMPROVED already existing tablets, I give that, but NOT INNOVATED.
Design trends don't exist anymore...now it's all about who did it first should own it forever...as long as it's Apple. -_-
Can you say monopoly? Nice try. Can you say samsung? I knew you could. Any one care for a macintosh apple? The world loves apples. One a day keeps the teacher away.
Every single Tablet before Apple had a stylus. I think you know that Samsung does not use stylus on their tablets.
More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.
and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?
why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?
First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones
And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)
It's crazy.
PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start
More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.
THAT
does
NOT
matter.
The point was that the shape existed yet Apple has a patent on it and thus the Tab was banned over a DRAWING of a product that does not exist, and Apple will most likely NEVER create.
No one is complaining about WebOS. Palm at least tried to innovate.
Android in other hand is a flawed system. Google have so far almost spent 20 billion on a "free" system. Instead of buying things: try to build your own. It would have been much cheaper.
The Federal Court in Australia has agreed to Apple's request to a preliminary ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the country, providing the iPad maker with yet another victory in its tense legal battle against its rival.
Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.
Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.
NO. This isn't about copying the iPad's appearance. This is about patents, specifically multitouch patents. The looks of the iPad and the other tablets are TRENDS...that has nothing to do with this injunction.
You should really stop playing that 'Apple copied the iOS5 notification system from xyz' crap, because it's really a stupid poor man's excuse for anything. There is nothing special about the iOS 5 notification system, but there wasn't anything special about it when every other phone or desktop OS implemented it before. I have had Linux distro's from 1999 on my PC that have a notification tray that works exactly the same. Android copied it from someone, WebOS did, WM did, and so on and so forth.
The only thing you can say about the iOS 5 notification system is that it was long overdue, and Apple really should have improved iOS notfications long ago, but they screwed up there. That's it. Fortunately there's a million other things in iOS that are a million times better than they are in Android, which have always compensated for the crappy notification system by a large margin.
Obsessively trying to point out how Android already had notifications sorted out long ago makes it look like Android must otherwise be extremely crappy, if the best you can come up with is 'OMFG iOS now has a feature that works just like Android, Apple is copying Android'. Doesn't Android have any other strong points where it beats iOS or have all the advantages it ever had been sorted out and we can leave the platform to die now?
that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.
the point of Apple "copying" was to show that Apple "cleverly" uses the legal system to protect what they IMPROVED (NOT INNOVATED) and still be allowed to copy from others that cannot be protected.
stop bitching about choice of examples. you get the point.
*besides I used quotation marks for the word copied not to emphasize but to indicate it is a subjective interpretation.
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?
why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?
First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones
And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)
It's crazy.
PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
Consumers may benefit in the short term from blatant copying, but they lose in the long term because companies like Apple lose the inceptive to spend hundreds of millions in research. It costs much less to copy somebody else's designs.
I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.
Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.
First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?
Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?
Meh, that's way too harsh. The rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction, though I think Apple should get 0 off the design claims.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
Again, the Tab was not banned for looking like an iPad.
The Tab was banned for resembling a drawing of a product that does not exist.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
6 criteria based on a drawing. If I'm wrong, correct me and I will stand corrected.
edit: let's not even bother getting into that as this injunction isn't based on any design.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
I should stop replying all these comments...
The problem with upholding the Apple's design claim is that it will give a way too favorable advantage to Apple in the long run.
Current design trend is minimal and simple; rather than adding craps on the hardware, people now try to make it clean and slim. I will give some credits to Apple for leading this trend.
In that case, if Apple succeed in this lawsuit against Samsung who tried to mimic Apple's design philosophy and doing so blatantly copied some of their accessories, all the other manufacturers will be discouraged from designing or manufacturing the designed in such a way products.
Then people will ask, while buying another Apple product, why do other manufacturers make products this ugly? Well, you know why. Apple will sue you if you make it clean like Apple does.
Also to note is that Apple's design is more of a bare minimum of a product type.
Even if technology allows in the future, if Apple's current design is upheld to be a right, others cannot make a paper like tablet without adding some dongles and shit around the side corner or back, or make the display triangle. (I know it is extreme but you see how ruling on a design can have serious consequences.) I perceive some counter arguments for this argument, but I am more of an opinion with not upholding Apple's design claim, so I will stop here.
The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.
Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.
Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.
Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.
So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.
Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.
First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?
Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?
Meh, that's way too harsh. the rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction.
Comments
Wrong.
I think you need to learn what is a trend.
I can prop as much as you'd be pleased about the fact that Apple leads a trend in industrial design: minimalistic and yet premium look and feel.
And that fact itself gives them competitive advantages.
People already know what Apple creates, how Apple products look like, and who is KIRF-ing.
Sure, they were the first manufacturer that actually created a tablet that looks like prototypes/concept designs that were introduced long before in movies and tv shows.
Just because they did so first, Apple claims that they should have exclusive control over the design and the trend.
WTF?
Hey a Tablet is still a Tablet. Looking good Tablet is one thing, and the other manufacturers can follow the good looking tablet design cues and that creates a tablet design trend.
and let's be honest.
Apple INVENTED NO SHIT. A Patent right is for protecting Innovations.
What Apple wanted to protect from their design is their trademark.
And Apple should've registered their design as a trademark which would be much more reluctantly give preliminary injunctions for infringements.
Again, Apple VASTLY IMPROVED already existing tablets, I give that, but NOT INNOVATED.
Design trends don't exist anymore...now it's all about who did it first should own it forever...as long as it's Apple. -_-
Can you say monopoly? Nice try. Can you say samsung? I knew you could. Any one care for a macintosh apple? The world loves apples. One a day keeps the teacher away.
An apple was the instrumentality of original sin.
Who cares. A ban is a ban, and it hurts where it should.
Ouch. Don't copy, don't steal.
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
Every single Tablet before Apple had a stylus. I think you know that Samsung does not use stylus on their tablets.
More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.
you were saying?
and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?
why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?
First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones
And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)
It's crazy.
PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start
Reality Ignorance Field is more like it.
More than that, every single tablet shown pre-iPad was running some version of a Desktop OS that was shoe-horned into a laptop-without-a-keyboard form factor.
THAT
does
NOT
matter.
The point was that the shape existed yet Apple has a patent on it and thus the Tab was banned over a DRAWING of a product that does not exist, and Apple will most likely NEVER create.
Peep the images I linked in a previous post.
The only ones who refuse to acknowledge the blatancy of Samsung's copying are probably shills paid for by Samsung.
Stop the Apple fanboyism. This injunction isn't about copying the appearance of the Apple iPad, it is about patents. Get your facts straight.
No one is complaining about WebOS. Palm at least tried to innovate.
Android in other hand is a flawed system. Google have so far almost spent 20 billion on a "free" system. Instead of buying things: try to build your own. It would have been much cheaper.
Cough...Siri...Cough
The Federal Court in Australia has agreed to Apple's request to a preliminary ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the country, providing the iPad maker with yet another victory in its tense legal battle against its rival.
Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.
Of concern, is how one company can seemingly 'take' something, incorporate minor changes, and 'make it their own'. It smacks of students who download a paper off the Internet, change a couple of words, and submit it as origional work. Not to mention these non-Apple interfaces and clown-like icons are more appropriate for a middle school than adult population.
NO. This isn't about copying the iPad's appearance. This is about patents, specifically multitouch patents. The looks of the iPad and the other tablets are TRENDS...that has nothing to do with this injunction.
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
www.thesaurus.com You're right, it's not copying..... :-)
Main Entry
[in-frinj] Show IPA
Part of Speech
Definition
Synonyms
Notes
Antonyms
You should really stop playing that 'Apple copied the iOS5 notification system from xyz' crap, because it's really a stupid poor man's excuse for anything. There is nothing special about the iOS 5 notification system, but there wasn't anything special about it when every other phone or desktop OS implemented it before. I have had Linux distro's from 1999 on my PC that have a notification tray that works exactly the same. Android copied it from someone, WebOS did, WM did, and so on and so forth.
The only thing you can say about the iOS 5 notification system is that it was long overdue, and Apple really should have improved iOS notfications long ago, but they screwed up there. That's it. Fortunately there's a million other things in iOS that are a million times better than they are in Android, which have always compensated for the crappy notification system by a large margin.
Obsessively trying to point out how Android already had notifications sorted out long ago makes it look like Android must otherwise be extremely crappy, if the best you can come up with is 'OMFG iOS now has a feature that works just like Android, Apple is copying Android'. Doesn't Android have any other strong points where it beats iOS or have all the advantages it ever had been sorted out and we can leave the platform to die now?
that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.
the point of Apple "copying" was to show that Apple "cleverly" uses the legal system to protect what they IMPROVED (NOT INNOVATED) and still be allowed to copy from others that cannot be protected.
stop bitching about choice of examples. you get the point.
*besides I used quotation marks for the word copied not to emphasize but to indicate it is a subjective interpretation.
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
you were saying?
and Samsung didn't do a 360 (I'm sure you meant 180) they made a thinner model to compete with the iPad...why is that wrong?
why is it that now that Apple is the market leader any company adapting their model and products to better compete with Apple is "STEALING" ?
First people are shocked Android changed it's looks (not it's function btw as it could always work on full touch devices even while it look blackberryish) to compete with the iPhone despite all the signs that that was the future of smartphones
And now people are shocked when people use the age old rounded rectangle design when they make tablets (or phones)
It's crazy.
PS. the Galaxy Tab wasn't banned in Australia due to looking like anything...there were 2 software patents it violated...so your argument is flawed from the start
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
Consumers may benefit in the short term from blatant copying, but they lose in the long term because companies like Apple lose the inceptive to spend hundreds of millions in research. It costs much less to copy somebody else's designs.
I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.
Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.
First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?
Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?
Meh, that's way too harsh. The rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction, though I think Apple should get 0 off the design claims.
www.thesaurus.com You're right, it's not copying..... :-)
Main Entry
[in-frinj] Show IPA
Part of Speech
Definition
Synonyms
Notes
Antonyms
You do know you're being disingenuous right?
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
Again, the Tab was not banned for looking like an iPad.
The Tab was banned for resembling a drawing of a product that does not exist.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
6 criteria based on a drawing. If I'm wrong, correct me and I will stand corrected.
edit: let's not even bother getting into that as this injunction isn't based on any design.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that Apple didn't go after all those "after iPad" designs you're showing on the right. Most of them are clearly not a problem and Apple hasn't bothered them. Instead, Apple went after the one that was the most obvious copy of the iPad.
I should stop replying all these comments...
The problem with upholding the Apple's design claim is that it will give a way too favorable advantage to Apple in the long run.
Current design trend is minimal and simple; rather than adding craps on the hardware, people now try to make it clean and slim. I will give some credits to Apple for leading this trend.
In that case, if Apple succeed in this lawsuit against Samsung who tried to mimic Apple's design philosophy and doing so blatantly copied some of their accessories, all the other manufacturers will be discouraged from designing or manufacturing the designed in such a way products.
Then people will ask, while buying another Apple product, why do other manufacturers make products this ugly? Well, you know why. Apple will sue you if you make it clean like Apple does.
Also to note is that Apple's design is more of a bare minimum of a product type.
Even if technology allows in the future, if Apple's current design is upheld to be a right, others cannot make a paper like tablet without adding some dongles and shit around the side corner or back, or make the display triangle. (I know it is extreme but you see how ruling on a design can have serious consequences.) I perceive some counter arguments for this argument, but I am more of an opinion with not upholding Apple's design claim, so I will stop here.
Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.
Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.
Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.
So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.
I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.
Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.
First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?
Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?
Meh, that's way too harsh. the rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction.