UK judge says Samsung tablet not 'cool' enough to be mistaken for iPad

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 128
    philgarphilgar Posts: 93member


    Just wait until Apple releases the Apple TV, then Samsung can sue apple for claiming that their device infringes upon Samsung's (and most everyone else in the industry's) design.  Large 16:9 rectangular screen, using LCD or plasma technology.  Integrated speakers to produce sound, Slightly rounded corners, thin, wall-mountable, etc.  Such a lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous, but it's no different than the ipad/galaxy tablet one.  The "design patents" apple is claiming had plenty of prior art... Just because the prior art wasn't hugely successful does not mean it doesn't count.  just because people are now copying some of apple's design does not mean apple is the only one able to use that design. Look at the PC industry, apple wasn't the first company to use metal laptops, but they were the most successful, and afterward other companies copied their design...  Does that make these companies any different than apple?  Not every company can sell tens of millions of every devices they make.  Apple is in a good position currently, and if you ask me, they're just making themselves look greedy through all their lawsuits... Apparently 80% or whatever of the mobile segment's revenues aren't enough, and no one else deserves any profit.  Besides, if Apple could kill off their competition, they could charge even more for their products, and make even LARGER profits!!!


     


    Phil

  • Reply 82 of 128
    jakebjakeb Posts: 559member


    There are people who think all tablets are "ipads". 


     


    "Oh hey, what kind of ipad did you get?"


    "It's a galaxy ipad, it was cheaper than the other ipads they had at the store."


     


    It's not at all crazy to think that people get confused.

  • Reply 83 of 128
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    philgar wrote: »
    Apple is in a good position currently, and if you ask me, they're just making themselves look greedy through all their lawsuits... Apparently 80% or whatever of the mobile segment's revenues aren't enough, and no one else deserves any profit.  Besides, if Apple could kill off their competition, they could charge even more for their products, and make even LARGER profits!!!

    We need some sort of definitive post that stops this monopoly crap once and for all.
  • Reply 84 of 128
    jack99jack99 Posts: 157member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Half these 'judges' sound like they have been on the wacky backy. Since when was 'cool' a parameter with which to ascertain IP infringement ! 



     


    You'd be surprised at the amount of discretion judges get to basically say whatever the hell they want. I highly doubt this was the basis for his argument. The "coolness" comment was probably added just for a bit of flair. You really should read the other portions about prior art. There's no way anyone with a straight face can say Apple made the first tablet.


     


     


    But still...haters gonna hate! image

  • Reply 85 of 128
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


     


     


    Do you have any facts to support this thought? 


     


    Unproven assumptions would be OK, but facts are the best.





    This has happened in the past with MP3 players.  Apple released a device into an already crowded MP3 player market and was roundly criticized for it. It is too simplistic, too expensive, too little, too late... We all know how that turned out with the little device known as the iPod going on to dominate sales even today.  The term iPod became a household term that was interchanged with music device.  I have personally had about 5 people I know, friends and family, who have wanted an iPod. They bought a different music player that had more features and cost less and were dissatisfied with the experience that they were having.  They asked me to come help them setup their new iPod.  When I found that they had instead purchased a competing device I explained that they had not purchased an iPod, but a Sansa, or other competing device.  Very few went back to the store as the device they had gotten was "good enough".  They hated the experience of getting the songs on it and once I had helped them set the thing up they never messed with it again.  They settled for less.  This was a lost sale for Apple.  The iPad is heading in the same direction. If you are being realistic you will see this.  Or you can close your eyes and pretend it does not happen.

  • Reply 86 of 128
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    A U.K. judge has found that the Samsung Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on Apple's design patents, and added that it isn't "cool" enough to be confused with the design of the iPad.



    "(Samsung's tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," Birss said in his ruling. "They are not as cool."



    The judge found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple, as they are thinner and have "unusual details" on the back. 


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    ... except the court had no comment on the iPad as such. This was strictly a case about a design on paper, one dating back to 2004, and one of many filed by Apple. This one happened to be useful for suing Samsung. It wasn't iPad vs Tab design.



     


    Whatever,  I'm just reading the article. She also said that Samsung had unusual details on the back. Of course there are not going to be any details of that sort in Apple's black and white line drawing in a patent application. 


     


    Sure the exact phrase was  'design of the iPad ' implied as 'on paper' but why use the word 'cool' in comparison? A line drawing and a broadly worded patent application isn't 'cool'. Don't kid yourself, she has seen a real iPad and thinks it is cooler.

  • Reply 87 of 128
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Don't kid yourself, she has seen a real iPad and thinks it is cooler.



    Agreed. It is "cooler" in my opinion too.

  • Reply 88 of 128


    For all the moron's who only follow this idiotic blog and its horrible reporting, here's an expanded version of the judges ruling. And I have an iPhone and a Macbook Pro, which I've had for 10 years. I prefer competition that forces companies to innovate and push each other beyond the simple bullshit tech we have now. 


     


    "The judge found that Samsung’s products were distinctive because they were thinner and had “unusual details” on the back. He gave Apple 21 days to appeal." -- Bloomberg News


     


    More from the Judge--""The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family."


     


     


    Samsung's PR response, explaining what "Kindred" means to those of you unfamiliar with the term. --"Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple’s ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple’s design right, such as 'slightly rounded corners,' 'a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,' and 'a thin profile.'


    "However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."


    Don't be a sheep. Buy what you like and promote competition to make our products better, not worse.

  • Reply 89 of 128
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member
    wurm5150 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has ever bought a Galaxy Tab thinking they bought an iPad..

    That is irrelevant. That's not the test for deciding on whether the design was copied.
  • Reply 90 of 128
    diplicationdiplication Posts: 609member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You're more than welcome to prove me wrong....



    As are you to prove me wrong. In my case it only takes one person to say they were bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad to prove me right.  In order to prove your point, it would require surveying every single purchaser of a Tab whether they thought they were buying an iPad.  If I were assigned one of these tasks, I know which one I would prefer.  But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll let you have first shot.

  • Reply 91 of 128
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member


    The part of the quote that caught my eye was this:


     


    "Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011..."

  • Reply 92 of 128
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by diplication View Post


    As are you to prove me wrong. In my case it only takes one person to say they were bought a Tab thinking it was an iPad to prove me right.  In order to prove your point, it would require surveying every single purchaser of a Tab whether they thought they were buying an iPad.  If I were assigned one of these tasks, I know which one I would prefer.  But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll let you have first shot.



    I'm sure you wished it worked like that but it was your claim. Surely you can find at least one instance as evidence that you're correct. That's the easy one to prove, right? It won't even require surveying everyone who ever bought a tablet.  

  • Reply 93 of 128
    powers14powers14 Posts: 3member


    just as Joshua said I'm stunned that a student able to make $7772 in a few weeks on the internet. did you look at this web page NuttyRich.com

  • Reply 95 of 128

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post




    This has happened in the past with MP3 players.  Apple released a device into an already crowded MP3 player market and was roundly criticized for it. It is too simplistic, too expensive, too little, too late... We all know how that turned out with the little device known as the iPod going on to dominate sales even today.  The term iPod became a household term that was interchanged with music device.  I have personally had about 5 people I know, friends and family, who have wanted an iPod. They bought a different music player that had more features and cost less and were dissatisfied with the experience that they were having.  They asked me to come help them setup their new iPod.  When I found that they had instead purchased a competing device I explained that they had not purchased an iPod, but a Sansa, or other competing device.  Very few went back to the store as the device they had gotten was "good enough".  They hated the experience of getting the songs on it and once I had helped them set the thing up they never messed with it again.  They settled for less.  This was a lost sale for Apple.  The iPad is heading in the same direction. If you are being realistic you will see this.  Or you can close your eyes and pretend it does not happen.



     


    Fair enough.  You base the statement "I think most buyers of the Galaxy Tab thought they were buying something as cool as an iPad. Many of them might never have seen an iPad in person nor understand that Android and iOS are incompatible. "


     


    on 5 people.  This sort of "5 examples indicates what MOST PEOPLE thought" is called a "hasty generalization".  Many people do that.  But it is fallacious, and so the conclusions cannot be relied upon.

  • Reply 96 of 128
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,197member
    lamewing wrote: »
    A black rectangle with a glass screen? That same design exists in my living room....it's called a HD TV.  I cannot believe supposed adults are arguing over the appearance of these tablets. The comment about identifying the devices is just stooooopid. I cannot ID a TV at a glance either...I look at the logo on the front. 

    Sorry to hear your living room HD TV is only a 9.7 inch -- a little short on the cash that day? Did it come with binoculars?
  • Reply 97 of 128
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member
    Did anyone else think of this when they read that Samsung's non-iPad isn't cool enough?
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382794/we-cant-afford-that-one
  • Reply 98 of 128
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,368member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


    The Samsung lawyers must be very stupid people then.



    A lawyer is only as stupid as his client.

  • Reply 99 of 128
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,368member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    We need some sort of definitive post that stops this monopoly crap once and for all.


    That's why we have moderators! ;-)

  • Reply 100 of 128
    modemode Posts: 163member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FjordPrefect View Post


    Pure crap. The Ozlolin? Never heard of it and neither has the internet, apparently. The Knight Ridder? It was never built or sold so customers can't really confuse it with an iPad since it's not a real product. And the TC1000? Well it was silver, had a keyboard and looked nothing like the iPad or the Galaxy. Apple's claim here is that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was designed to look like an existing product in the same category in which it competes. They're not suing Sony, whose tablet looks very different from Apple's. They're not suing Amazon, whose Kindle Fire features a different for factor altogether. They're suing Samsung who shamelessly steals designs and doesn't even think twice about it. Hell, wasn't there a post a while back about how Samsung was using iOS icons in their Tab series advertising? I mean, who's kidding who here? Well the Brits historically have hated Apple and I'm sure that judge probably grew up in that culture of bias, maybe he had an Acorn growing up? Who knows?



     


    Have you never heard of 'memes' or collective consciousness?


    Sometimes an idea or design (the same solution) is discovered by multiple unconnected people at the same time. When an idea is ready to be discovered, it's usually the result of an amalgam of other knowledge.


    Because of the nature of technology (limitations of size, shape, capacity, function) - it's conceivable and predictable that technology will be 'similar'.


     


    Now, i'm not saying that that is the case here. (My new favorite word is 'slavishly')


    However...


    Apple didn't invent the rectangle, they didn't invent a flat surface or beveled corners or icons in a grid.


    They did however, put them together in a way that was unique from the norm.


    Does that mean they should be granted patents to basic design elements and obvious solutions?


    For all you know, Ives and Jobs were inspired by the Knight Ridder.


     


    So how do we reward Apple for their design and not stifle competition?


     


    The problem is with the patent system and how it awards and rewards. This is truly where real innovation is desperately needed.


    Reading this forum, you would believe that Apple should be granted a patent on 'innovation'. 


    I would say to those readers careful where you throw stones - Apple is infringing on hundreds of patents itself.


     


    Samsung should not have been quite so slavish in their copying. They should have taken the design and greatly improved upon it.

Sign In or Register to comment.