If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.
ASCII. The next justice on the bench of the FCA. LOL
What was copied? What was issue in this case? Very little to do with the shape, evidently:
From ITWire:
"It left two remaining patents relied on by Apple to push its case, comprising a heuristics patent (2007286532), which corrected a user's intended finger gestures on the touch screen, and the manufacturing techniques behind the iPad and iPad 2's touch screen (2005246219)."
If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.
I'll be the first to condemn Samsung when it comes to TouchWiz. I think they intentionally copied Apple's trade dress to sell phones.
The tablets though are a different story.
A person would have to be a complete idiot to look at a Galaxy Tab and an iPad and think they were the same thing.
If that's what it takes to make you feel better...
Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.
Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.
Obviously, the only viewpoint that matters is the one in his own mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Oh, he fundamentally doesn't get your argument.
Here's an analogy. If DaHarder was in history class, he'd happily copy the top student's answers on the final exam knowing that it'll boost his own score on the test. And if the top student should complain about it, DaHarder would accuse the top student of trying to "block competition" instead of "competing fairly."
Your analogy would have sprayed everywhere had I been drinking at the time I read your post! That describes DaHarder perfectly!
That's your reply?! Seriously?! You could at least put a little effort into your post. Perhaps create a counter-argument that paints a picture as to how Samsung got to a successful position in TV sales and how their empire in this market segment is built well enough that even a disruptive company like Apple won't be able to shake their position.
The Galaxy Tab is definitely Samsung's/Google's take on the same tablet market the iPad is in.
That's not how I see it. There was no (significant) tablet market, everyone was fighting over Netbooks. Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.
If that's how to we got to where we are, it is disingenuous to regard the Samsung and the Apple as simply competitor tablets. It would be truer to it's origins to say the Galaxy is not the Samsung tablet, but the Samsung iPad, and therefore Apple have every right to take a close legal look at it.
LG had an iPAD out in 2001! Almost a decade before the Apple's iPAD. Obviously, the idea for these devices are not as "creative" as Apple would like us to think it is.
"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."
LG had an iPAD out in 2001! Almost a decade before the Apple's iPAD. Obviously, the idea for these devices are not as "creative" as Apple would like us to think it is.
"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."
1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.
2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.
The point being that Apple didn't create the mousetrap but just built a better one and they shouldn't go nuts just because a competitor decides to build an even better mousetrap, they're both playing the same game. These patent lawsuits are ridiculous and the only losers are going to be us, the customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.
2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.
The point being that Apple didn't create the mousetrap but just built a better one and they shouldn't go nuts just because a competitor decides to build an even better mousetrap, they're both playing the same game. These patent lawsuits are ridiculous and the only losers are going to be us, the customers.
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.
Apple should take what if any case they have with Google. As for design, look at the picture, there's a center button on the bottom that looks simple and similar to the Apple iPAD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.
Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.
If that is the case I can't see how you end up at the conclusion that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the iPad. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad are different in both form and function.
If you had spent any amount of time with Android tablets and the iPad you would know what I mean.
What you can reasonably (and correctly) say is that Samsung copied Apple's market strategy.
Apple should take what if any case they have with Google. As for design, look at the picture, there's a center button on the bottom that looks simple and similar to the Apple iPAD.
No there isn't. Check again.
Whilst you're at it note that it's also designed for landscape and has a 16x9 display ratio.
If that is the case I can't see how you end up at the conclusion that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the iPad. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad are different in both form and function.
If you had spent any amount of time with Android tablets and the iPad you would know what I mean.
What you can reasonably (and correctly) say is that Samsung copied Apple's market strategy.
I guess that's why the Galaxy Tab hasn't been banned in several jurisdictions...
...oh, hang on.
Samsung aren't out of the woods yet, an injunction pending the main court case was overturned, hearings are still proceeding, including those in the US.
Comments
If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.
ASCII. The next justice on the bench of the FCA. LOL
What was copied? What was issue in this case? Very little to do with the shape, evidently:
From ITWire:
"It left two remaining patents relied on by Apple to push its case, comprising a heuristics patent (2007286532), which corrected a user's intended finger gestures on the touch screen, and the manufacturing techniques behind the iPad and iPad 2's touch screen (2005246219)."
If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.
I'll be the first to condemn Samsung when it comes to TouchWiz. I think they intentionally copied Apple's trade dress to sell phones.
The tablets though are a different story.
A person would have to be a complete idiot to look at a Galaxy Tab and an iPad and think they were the same thing.
If that's what it takes to make you feel better...
Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.
Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.
Obviously, the only viewpoint that matters is the one in his own mind.
Oh, he fundamentally doesn't get your argument.
Here's an analogy. If DaHarder was in history class, he'd happily copy the top student's answers on the final exam knowing that it'll boost his own score on the test. And if the top student should complain about it, DaHarder would accuse the top student of trying to "block competition" instead of "competing fairly."
Your analogy would have sprayed everywhere had I been drinking at the time I read your post! That describes DaHarder perfectly!
A person would have to be a complete idiot to look at a Galaxy Tab and an iPad and think they were the same thing.
Oh yeah, the Galaxy Tab is a true original. Created a whole new category of device they did, Samsung.
I hear a clock ticking on Samsung TV dominance.
They'll get theirs.
You wish.
You wish.
That's your reply?! Seriously?! You could at least put a little effort into your post. Perhaps create a counter-argument that paints a picture as to how Samsung got to a successful position in TV sales and how their empire in this market segment is built well enough that even a disruptive company like Apple won't be able to shake their position.
the Galaxy Tab is a true original. Created a whole new category of device they did, Samsung.
I completely and utterly disagree. The Galaxy Tab isn't a new device category at all.
The Galaxy Tab is definitely Samsung's/Google's take on the same tablet market the iPad is in.
Once a troll always a troll. ignore!
The Galaxy Tab is definitely Samsung's/Google's take on the same tablet market the iPad is in.
That's not how I see it. There was no (significant) tablet market, everyone was fighting over Netbooks. Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.
If that's how to we got to where we are, it is disingenuous to regard the Samsung and the Apple as simply competitor tablets. It would be truer to it's origins to say the Galaxy is not the Samsung tablet, but the Samsung iPad, and therefore Apple have every right to take a close legal look at it.
"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...-pad-at-CeBIT/
LG had an iPAD out in 2001! Almost a decade before the Apple's iPAD. Obviously, the idea for these devices are not as "creative" as Apple would like us to think it is.
"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...-pad-at-CeBIT/
1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.
2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.
1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.
2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.
The point being that Apple didn't create the mousetrap but just built a better one and they shouldn't go nuts just because a competitor decides to build an even better mousetrap, they're both playing the same game. These patent lawsuits are ridiculous and the only losers are going to be us, the customers.
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.
~SolipsismX~
Better, Harder, Faster, Stronger?
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.
Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.
If that is the case I can't see how you end up at the conclusion that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the iPad. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad are different in both form and function.
If you had spent any amount of time with Android tablets and the iPad you would know what I mean.
What you can reasonably (and correctly) say is that Samsung copied Apple's market strategy.
Apple should take what if any case they have with Google. As for design, look at the picture, there's a center button on the bottom that looks simple and similar to the Apple iPAD.
No there isn't. Check again.
Whilst you're at it note that it's also designed for landscape and has a 16x9 display ratio.
Now Samsung is free to have zero sales in Australia.
If that is the case I can't see how you end up at the conclusion that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the iPad. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad are different in both form and function.
If you had spent any amount of time with Android tablets and the iPad you would know what I mean.
What you can reasonably (and correctly) say is that Samsung copied Apple's market strategy.
I guess that's why the Galaxy Tab hasn't been banned in several jurisdictions...
...oh, hang on.
Samsung aren't out of the woods yet, an injunction pending the main court case was overturned, hearings are still proceeding, including those in the US.