Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?
We need logical fallacy bingo for threads like this. Ad Hominem would be the free center square. For this post we could fill in the Weak Analogy squares
Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it
Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it
It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.
that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad.
Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.
Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!
Quote:
Businesses copy each other all the time!
Uh, and ones that do get sued all the time too!
Go read the US Constitution. It's a surprisingly short document for setting up a government for a country. Make note of how many concepts are in it. There aren't that many, yet patents and intellectual property protections are there - prominently.
They are the foundation of innovation and success of the United States over the last 200+ years.
Quote:
It is part of the free market system.
No, it's part of some weird pipe dream/alternate reality.
Quote:
Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated?
Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?
Quote:
We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed.
Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.
Quote:
Look and feel patents should never be allowed.
Why? Just because you say so? You sound like the myopic arguers against copyright when it was first conceptualized. And yet it's clear (at least to those with rational reasoning capabilities) that copyright fostered an explosion of knowledge and creativity.
America would not be the country it is today without patents. As I pointed out in another thread, even China is beginning to understand the dangers of rampant copying and as their economy matures they are now starting to enforce copyright and patent protections.
You can't have a stable economy without the promise for being rewarded for your labor. It's the most fundamental of human requirements.
Quote:
Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember?
Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.
Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?
Quote:
So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad.
... Sigh. Nevermind. Not even worth trying to explain.
Quote:
The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Tablet yes, iPad no. Ugh.
Here, if you really want to increase your personal wisdom, check out a book like this:
Start with the concepts of intellectual property and patents - Benjamin Franklin was a huge proponent and this book has several good writings from him and others on the subject. You might just learn something.
Then again it would take effort to actually try to expand your horizons - much easier to just spout off "feelings" in an Internet forum
My understanding of this (thinking in terms of a criminal trial) is that Samsung got charged and released on their own recognizance until the main trial starts.
If they had lost, it would be similar to a person having to stay in jail while they wait for the main trial.
In other words, there's enough evidence to go to trial, but not enough to take any action (prelimiinary injunction) at this time.
It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.
If this keeps up I'm going to run out of popcorn...
Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.
Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...
I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this
you moron, there suing because samsung is stealing there innovations. its samsung who should be innovating and they wouldn't be getting sued. why doesn't that make sense to you
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics!
Use of logic in Internet forums is doomed to failure.
But great post and spot-on point - even if it continues to sail over their heads
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations?
I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.
There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?
I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.
There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?
And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.
Patent law doesn't exist to keep up "the pace of innovation." Patent law exists to protect the economic (and other) rights of the creators of the innovations.
So, what would the "pace of innovation" be if you knew that any innovation you attempt to develop could be stolen with no recourse?
So while you are technically correct - patent's don't expressly "keep up the pace of innovation", they certainly are a direct contributor to it.
Considered so essential to the success of the country they are one of the few concepts expressly outlined in the US Constitution!
Quote:
How fast innovation does or does not proceed is irrelevant and many things affect that speed.
I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.
Especially for a smaller/independent entrepreneur. Another thing that people tend to overlook - Apple is pretty unique for a large company in that they routinely break into or create new markets. Typically it's smaller players (like Tivo for DVRs) that create new markets. Unfortunately, even with patents Tivo has had a hard time - but they wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for patents.
Quote:
There are excellent arguments that Capitalism itself slows down the pace of innovation and invention.
Arguments from people divorced from reality due to what basically boil down to religious beliefs.
For all the "capitalism is evil" crap being spewed, no one has managed to come up with something better. And you can't tell me there aren't fertile grounds for new ideas with merit in the world...
While not perfect - what system is? - capitalism has fostered the greatest achievements in human history.
Had the democracy of ancient Greece not collapsed under it's own stupidity (a path the US and most of the west seems hell bent on following) who know's how much sooner concepts such as mechanization, mass production and electricity would have developed. Ancient people weren't stupid - but factors such as political, social and economic policies all are all contributors to "innovation".
It always saddens me when people complain about history being "boring". Far from it - history holds the answers and examples to many questions that people have. We like to think of ourselves as being special and "ancient peoples" being more like chimpanzees, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that isn't the case.
The real danger to modern society are anti-intellectualism and the emergence of the sound bite. Forget Orwell's 1984, Max Headroom and the blipvert are what we should all be watching out for!
Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.
Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...
I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this
And if Samsung's digital photo frame was such a key point why didn't Samsung use as proof of prior art or trade dress for a tablet in the case and why didn't the judge throw out the case upon seeing this digital photo frame from 2006?
It's really hard to believe anyone can look at that digital photo frame and think that the iPad ripped it off. There is no way to confuse their purpose, HW or SW look and feel.
And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.
Of course MS was going to sue. But the children seem to think that MS deciding to license makes them the "good buys" and Apple seking a ban are the "bad guys".
They are both doing what they are entitled to under the law.
Apple is claiming only front design in most of their design patents.
So it is not wrong to compare the front side of two devices.
Though it is also clear that from other sides it is quite dissimilar with IPAD
Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.
Comments
There were tablets before the iPad btw.
And look at how many people cared... Heck, they were even Bill Gates priority! For over a decade!
I guess you can only fight a crap argument with more crap.
I'd tell you to be careful flinging around so much crap, but then realized it's probably all you know how to do
Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?
We need logical fallacy bingo for threads like this. Ad Hominem would be the free center square. For this post we could fill in the Weak Analogy squares
it clearly says Samsung on the product.
Like someone already said... you guys have a lot of difficult understanding the law.
Put him on your ignore list to avoid his rants.
If we could just get people to stop quoting his entire messages - including ridiculous pictures...
No wonder USA's economy is only good at creating bogus banks.
Yup, this was just a fluke...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...-pre-order.ars
Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it
It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.
that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad.
Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.
Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!
Businesses copy each other all the time!
Uh, and ones that do get sued all the time too!
Go read the US Constitution. It's a surprisingly short document for setting up a government for a country. Make note of how many concepts are in it. There aren't that many, yet patents and intellectual property protections are there - prominently.
They are the foundation of innovation and success of the United States over the last 200+ years.
It is part of the free market system.
No, it's part of some weird pipe dream/alternate reality.
Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated?
Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?
We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed.
Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.
Look and feel patents should never be allowed.
Why? Just because you say so? You sound like the myopic arguers against copyright when it was first conceptualized. And yet it's clear (at least to those with rational reasoning capabilities) that copyright fostered an explosion of knowledge and creativity.
America would not be the country it is today without patents. As I pointed out in another thread, even China is beginning to understand the dangers of rampant copying and as their economy matures they are now starting to enforce copyright and patent protections.
You can't have a stable economy without the promise for being rewarded for your labor. It's the most fundamental of human requirements.
Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember?
Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.
Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?
So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad.
... Sigh. Nevermind. Not even worth trying to explain.
The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Tablet yes, iPad no. Ugh.
Here, if you really want to increase your personal wisdom, check out a book like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Const.../dp/0865973024
Start with the concepts of intellectual property and patents - Benjamin Franklin was a huge proponent and this book has several good writings from him and others on the subject. You might just learn something.
Then again it would take effort to actually try to expand your horizons - much easier to just spout off "feelings" in an Internet forum
If they had lost, it would be similar to a person having to stay in jail while they wait for the main trial.
In other words, there's enough evidence to go to trial, but not enough to take any action (prelimiinary injunction) at this time.
It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.
If this keeps up I'm going to run out of popcorn...
Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.
Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.
Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...
I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this
When you can't innovate, sue.
you moron, there suing because samsung is stealing there innovations. its samsung who should be innovating and they wouldn't be getting sued. why doesn't that make sense to you
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics!
Use of logic in Internet forums is doomed to failure.
But great post and spot-on point - even if it continues to sail over their heads
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations?
I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.
There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?
I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.
There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?
And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.
Patent law doesn't exist to keep up "the pace of innovation." Patent law exists to protect the economic (and other) rights of the creators of the innovations.
So, what would the "pace of innovation" be if you knew that any innovation you attempt to develop could be stolen with no recourse?
So while you are technically correct - patent's don't expressly "keep up the pace of innovation", they certainly are a direct contributor to it.
Considered so essential to the success of the country they are one of the few concepts expressly outlined in the US Constitution!
How fast innovation does or does not proceed is irrelevant and many things affect that speed.
I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.
Especially for a smaller/independent entrepreneur. Another thing that people tend to overlook - Apple is pretty unique for a large company in that they routinely break into or create new markets. Typically it's smaller players (like Tivo for DVRs) that create new markets. Unfortunately, even with patents Tivo has had a hard time - but they wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for patents.
There are excellent arguments that Capitalism itself slows down the pace of innovation and invention.
Arguments from people divorced from reality due to what basically boil down to religious beliefs.
For all the "capitalism is evil" crap being spewed, no one has managed to come up with something better. And you can't tell me there aren't fertile grounds for new ideas with merit in the world...
While not perfect - what system is? - capitalism has fostered the greatest achievements in human history.
Had the democracy of ancient Greece not collapsed under it's own stupidity (a path the US and most of the west seems hell bent on following) who know's how much sooner concepts such as mechanization, mass production and electricity would have developed. Ancient people weren't stupid - but factors such as political, social and economic policies all are all contributors to "innovation".
It always saddens me when people complain about history being "boring". Far from it - history holds the answers and examples to many questions that people have. We like to think of ourselves as being special and "ancient peoples" being more like chimpanzees, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that isn't the case.
The real danger to modern society are anti-intellectualism and the emergence of the sound bite. Forget Orwell's 1984, Max Headroom and the blipvert are what we should all be watching out for!
Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.
Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...
I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this
And if Samsung's digital photo frame was such a key point why didn't Samsung use as proof of prior art or trade dress for a tablet in the case and why didn't the judge throw out the case upon seeing this digital photo frame from 2006?
It's really hard to believe anyone can look at that digital photo frame and think that the iPad ripped it off. There is no way to confuse their purpose, HW or SW look and feel.
And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.
Of course MS was going to sue. But the children seem to think that MS deciding to license makes them the "good buys" and Apple seking a ban are the "bad guys".
They are both doing what they are entitled to under the law.
Apple is claiming only front design in most of their design patents.
So it is not wrong to compare the front side of two devices.
Though it is also clear that from other sides it is quite dissimilar with IPAD
Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn the original injuction is what you are referring. I agree, the back of that is not as much as a rip off of Apple, but it is still a clear rip off by Samesung.