As I sell Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia, I am left to ponder where all the people who are going to buy them are, judging by all the stuff on the Internet I would have thought they'd be lined up hammering on the door.
Just goes to show ya - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Maybe judging by all the stuff on the internet is not a good methodology?
The thing that bugs me is that there is a big SAMSUNG right on the front. I figured any intelligent human would be able to determine that it is not an Apple product and a super intelligent Apple buyer would have zero confusion.
Well, the problem is that all the salespeople tell the buyers that it is a Samsung brand iPad, and it is just as good, but a LOT cheaper than the Apple version. And Google pays people to hang around Best Buy and other places to try to get Apple customers to believe that Android is almost as good as iOS.
Semantics aside, when the attorneys defending the alleged imitator (who are ostensibly familiar enough with the products to formulate a credible defense) can't even differentiate between the two products at a mere 10 foot distance, you have wonder if maybe there might be some confusion to an average [uninformed] joe consumer wandering through his local electronics shop.
So what does this mean? All non-ipads have to be triangle shaped?
Seriously. What about a phone at 10 feet? Most likely they'll both be black. And they'll both have the same shape.
Did apple patent all tablets with 4 sides? Even the aspect ratio is different between these 2 tablets. When the tablets are turned on, it's completely obvious that they're different.
Semantics aside, when the attorneys defending the alleged imitator (who are ostensibly familiar enough with the products to formulate a credible defense) can't even differentiate between the two products at a mere 10 foot distance, you have wonder if maybe there might be some confusion to an average [uninformed] joe consumer wandering through his local electronics shop.
Wasn't the look and feel argument rejected due to decorations being patentable but not design elements created for functionality? They do look quite a bit alike (probably too much alike), but if both are going for minimalism, they are likely to end up visually similar in hardware, especially with the shared Samsung parts. Note how I'm not saying they didn't copy. I'm saying even if they didn't, it's likely that they still would have looked similar. Older tablets didn't necessarily run on ARM. Apple got on that one as soon as ARM was mature enough to make this possible. Five years ago the hardware may just not have been up to par.
Edit: To clarify in such a device it's remarkably stupid (not a personal attack, I just don't like the concept) to use "hardware" visuals as a means of identification. Even macs were beige boxes at one point. Electronic devices define themselves by usability, not looks.
Edit: Edit: It's also important to note basis for each case filing. Different infringements were cited in different cases worldwide.
So what does this mean? All non-ipads have to be triangle shaped?
Seriously. What about a phone at 10 feet? Most likely they'll both be black. And they'll both have the same shape.
Did apple patent all tablets with 4 sides? Even the aspect ratio is different between these 2 tablets. When the tablets are turned on, it's completely obvious that they're different.
No, as is obvious from the ruling in this case.
"OMG, Apple patented the rectangle" is getting a bit tired, don't you think it's time you dropped your simplistic and false overview?
It does not have to be a direct visual copy to draw litigation from Apple. They're just a smaller company than Samsung and Apple lost, so you hear less about the case.
Do you speak to just hear yourself? Have you contributed ONE thread to this forum of value? Atleast Slappy, though crazy, contributes. Is he really that able to get under your skin? Seems so.
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I've been having an awesome Christmas with my girl, family, and friends over Christmas while you've been...here.
1. I have a separate account for 'contributing'. This one's for heckling trolls with nothing substantial to contribute their lives to, a point you're yet to deny.
2. Good to hear you reckon Slapppy (at least I can spell his name) is 'crazy'.
3. Get under my skin? You bet. People who don't contribute positively in life piss me off.
Comments
As I sell Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia, I am left to ponder where all the people who are going to buy them are, judging by all the stuff on the Internet I would have thought they'd be lined up hammering on the door.
Just goes to show ya - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Maybe judging by all the stuff on the internet is not a good methodology?
The thing that bugs me is that there is a big SAMSUNG right on the front. I figured any intelligent human would be able to determine that it is not an Apple product and a super intelligent Apple buyer would have zero confusion.
Well, the problem is that all the salespeople tell the buyers that it is a Samsung brand iPad, and it is just as good, but a LOT cheaper than the Apple version. And Google pays people to hang around Best Buy and other places to try to get Apple customers to believe that Android is almost as good as iOS.
All lies!
Semantics aside, when the attorneys defending the alleged imitator (who are ostensibly familiar enough with the products to formulate a credible defense) can't even differentiate between the two products at a mere 10 foot distance, you have wonder if maybe there might be some confusion to an average [uninformed] joe consumer wandering through his local electronics shop.
So what does this mean? All non-ipads have to be triangle shaped?
Seriously. What about a phone at 10 feet? Most likely they'll both be black. And they'll both have the same shape.
Did apple patent all tablets with 4 sides? Even the aspect ratio is different between these 2 tablets. When the tablets are turned on, it's completely obvious that they're different.
Semantics aside, when the attorneys defending the alleged imitator (who are ostensibly familiar enough with the products to formulate a credible defense) can't even differentiate between the two products at a mere 10 foot distance, you have wonder if maybe there might be some confusion to an average [uninformed] joe consumer wandering through his local electronics shop.
Wasn't the look and feel argument rejected due to decorations being patentable but not design elements created for functionality? They do look quite a bit alike (probably too much alike), but if both are going for minimalism, they are likely to end up visually similar in hardware, especially with the shared Samsung parts. Note how I'm not saying they didn't copy. I'm saying even if they didn't, it's likely that they still would have looked similar. Older tablets didn't necessarily run on ARM. Apple got on that one as soon as ARM was mature enough to make this possible. Five years ago the hardware may just not have been up to par.
Edit: To clarify in such a device it's remarkably stupid (not a personal attack, I just don't like the concept) to use "hardware" visuals as a means of identification. Even macs were beige boxes at one point. Electronic devices define themselves by usability, not looks.
Edit: Edit: It's also important to note basis for each case filing. Different infringements were cited in different cases worldwide.
So what does this mean? All non-ipads have to be triangle shaped?
Seriously. What about a phone at 10 feet? Most likely they'll both be black. And they'll both have the same shape.
Did apple patent all tablets with 4 sides? Even the aspect ratio is different between these 2 tablets. When the tablets are turned on, it's completely obvious that they're different.
No, as is obvious from the ruling in this case.
"OMG, Apple patented the rectangle" is getting a bit tired, don't you think it's time you dropped your simplistic and false overview?
No, as is obvious from the ruling in this case.
"OMG, Apple patented the rectangle" is getting a bit tired, don't you think it's time you dropped your simplistic and false overview?
Why don't you take a look at the Spanish tablet company that was sued by Apple?
http://www.nt-k.com/
It does not have to be a direct visual copy to draw litigation from Apple. They're just a smaller company than Samsung and Apple lost, so you hear less about the case.
Do you speak to just hear yourself? Have you contributed ONE thread to this forum of value? Atleast Slappy, though crazy, contributes. Is he really that able to get under your skin? Seems so.
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I've been having an awesome Christmas with my girl, family, and friends over Christmas while you've been...here.
1. I have a separate account for 'contributing'. This one's for heckling trolls with nothing substantial to contribute their lives to, a point you're yet to deny.
2. Good to hear you reckon Slapppy (at least I can spell his name) is 'crazy'.
3. Get under my skin? You bet. People who don't contribute positively in life piss me off.