The case is about design patents, about trade dress and customer confusion, and I'm happy that I don't have to decide the case. But I do care a lot about design and industrial innovation.
Form follows function, eventually, and good design teams make that happen real-time. Those employed by Apple have, in addition, created product designs that are extremely desirable.
Anyway, the Knight Ridder design study demonstrates how the design goal "deliver news on an interactive device" independently leads to a device largely similar to a Kindle.
Or an iPad, if you like. A thin slab with rounded corners. Design patents can be a lot harder to defend than utility patents. I'm not concluding anything.
A Kindle started out with sharp corners; like a book. However, the "thin slab with rounded corners" is only a tiny part of the complete trade dress patent... only the preamble, if you will. Samscum didn't stop there, but went whole hog. To hear Samscum go on, you'd think it was all about the rectangle, however that's a misdirection.
If Apple wins this, and I think they have a good chance at it, all other tablets will greatly change their appearance to steer well away from Apple's look and feel. Only Microsoft's butt-ugly tiles may escape the carnage-to-come.
That's funny because I also have a 5 yr old Samsung plasma that's been aces to me and I swear by it. I've always been lucky with consumer electronics now that I think of it.
Sansung does make reasonably good products. I've very happy with my Samsung refrigerator even though it tends to make a sound like a pop-gun now and then for no apparent reason.
I can forgive an initial confusion upon seeing the Tab 10.1 but to actually purchase it and take it home because they thought it was an iPad is the pinnacle of stupidity. I'm also sure many were misled even further by salespeople. That cannot be blamed 100% on Samsung.
Yes your royal highness, please forgive the foolish and flawed mortals.
Stupid people shouldn't own an iPad anyway.....so no biggie.
You're awesome!
Are you Apple ][?
How far above everyone else are you? If you're so advanced let me know. Perhaps I'll pay for your IQ test. However, if I pay for it I hold ownership and will post it on this site often.
Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
Let's see this example in real life.
Most tech-savvy people are probably not fashion savvy. Let me ask you. What's the difference between a 2000$ Fendi purse at Nordstoms and a 99$ Fendi purse from walmart? Why would you want to spend so much money on the Fendi when the one at walmart does all the same things (stores your money, phone, lipgloss, etc) ?
Walmart has done this ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2007-06-07-walmart-fendi_N.htm ) Now why would a company go out of it's way to make fake purses if it wouldn't fool anyone? The keyword here is "fool." Next time you see a friend who has a luxury brand item (Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Chloe, etc) ask them where they bought it. If they tell you eBay or Chinatown, it's certainly a fake. Do they care? No, they just want to say they have that luxury brand. Not that different from people saying Apple is expensive, but oh here's something that looks exactly the same for less.
(Counterfeits are usually made with PVC or PU, not real leather, and mass produced in China. )
So back to Samsung, maybe their goal was to fool carriers and stores into carrying their devices and saying they're iPads. We already know that electronic stores that have commissioned sales staff push the products with the highest commissions. So passing off Samsung's devices as "cheaper iPads and iPhones" to people who think an "iPad" is what a Tablet is called and iPhone is what a smartphone is called.
As for trademark dilution, there are certainly cases where trademarks become somewhat genericized, but that's usually not because of competition, but rather the brand of the competitors is forgettable or confusing. If someone on the street asked you for a "Galaxy" would you know that they meant a phone or tablet?
The point is of course that 'copying a style' isn't copying at all in a legal sense, unless they use the same name and logo.
J.
Not necessarily true. Confusion of consumers is a concern. Remember that cabbage patch kids fiasco? When Dr. Joyce Brothers was brought in as an expert witness?
How far above everyone else are you? If you're so advanced let me know. Perhaps I'll pay for your IQ test. However, if I pay for it I hold ownership and will post it on this site often.
You're displaying your IQ with such a post. No test req'd.
What we see being revealed in this trial is precisely why companies prefer to settle. Apple is forced to unmask past prototypes and steps in its design process. Samsung is forced to reveal embarrassing analysis it conducted. What will be the net gain or loss for each?
Prepare to be disappointed because that's not gonna happen, the devices in question aren't even in the market anymore. Samsung has moved on and doing quite well. They'll be penalized a much smaller amount than Apple has requested.
The amount of money is not the issue.
What Apple wants out of this is for Samsung to stop copying and for the court to rule that Samsung illegally copied their designs and infringed their patents. Samsung has already started to move away from the iPad and iPhone slavish copies, so Apple can get the first part without a court decision. I expect that Samsung will settle rather than risk getting a court decision that they illegally copied a competitor (and the evidence so far is pretty convincing).
it just means that our american public on the most part are basically morons if you cant tell the difference between an ipad and a galaxy tab neither one is really going to help you much
Yes, you can bury your head in the sand if you wish and pretend that it's all the public's fault. But ask yourself - when was the last time someone wanted bought a Ford but thought they were buying a Honda? When was the last time someone flew on American but thought they were flying on United?
Samsung has made an obvious attempt to copy Apple's designs so exactly as to foster confusion. Not only did their tablets look almost exactly like the iPad and their phones looked almost exactly like the iPhone, but they even made their packaging and cables look nearly identical. Heck, until the latest "Apple users are sheep" ads, they even made their ads similar. EVEN IF you accept that only idiots would confuse the two (which is clearly a false assumption since even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference), Samsung's deliberate attempts to confuse consumers by making the products nearly identical is wrong and should be punished. And the way the court case is going, they probably WILL be punished.
Not necessarily true. Confusion of consumers is a concern. Remember that cabbage patch kids fiasco? When Dr. Joyce Brothers was brought in as an expert witness?
No, I don't remember that.
If a product is clearly branded and has a minimal form - as is the case for tablets - its very hard to make a court case out of it.
The 'evidence' presented is extremely weak, remember that all cars look the same from a distance, especially for the untrained eye, and nobody is complaining about that.
Also, car design features are heavily 'borrowed', but nobody is complaining about that; only if you add false logos and advertise it as a car from another brand you will get into trouble.
And nobody with a feel for aesthetics will mistake a Samsung for an Apple.
I don't believe in evolution. I think the evidence for it is overwhelming, but belief plays no part in the scientific process. Sorry - just being pedantic.
belief |bi?l?f|
noun
1 an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
I believe in evolution because the scientific data is overwhelming to show that the theory is true. There is also a definition for a belief system, such as religion, but they are both defined as beliefs. There is nothing metaphysical about the first definition.
I think I see what you're getting at but the OAD3 shows that the word belief is more than just for something that can't be proven. I also know of no scientific designation that would specify a difference in the way that hypothesis and theory are unique terms and yet used interchangeably in colloquial speak.
I believe in evolution because the scientific data is overwhelming to show that the theory is true. There is also a definition for a belief system, such as religion, but they are both defined as beliefs. There is nothing metaphysical about the first definition.
OK - you are distinguishing between those kinds of belief. Fair enough, but Im not sure the distinction really exists. A key element of belief is that it does not require knowledge or evidence to sustain it (as we see ubiquitously), and by corollary, it can be impervious to contrary evidence. That's my reason for rejecting it as a part of the scientific method.
The chump from Best Buy could also talk real fast, flash a flat electronic device and say, "you want one of these, right?" and the customer could say "yeh, yeh" and walk out of the store with a Touchpad. This is just like the Pepsi Test Challenge, designed to confuse the consumer so they would think it is comparable or equal to the leading brand.
I am far more likely to belive 89% of people surveyed were stupid enough not to understand there is a difference between the Galaxy Tab and an IPad. You can't blame Samsung for stupid people who can't read a label.
Thank goodness for Apple that same "stupid" gene pool statistically would make up the jury...makes the win that much easier...
I was kidding dude. No need to get twisted about it.
funny thing, i think that attack was deleted... (i read it quoted in another post)
why insult someone, then take it back?...
BTW, the moderators are REAL people not a computer... so your "turing test" to see of the mods are real, is a bad idea... not to mention your posts(dasanman69) if deleted might not be missed...
<strong>why would you be kidding about a personal attack on a moderator?</strong> "just don't do it" to paraphrase the "NIKE" slogan....
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterring
The case is about design patents, about trade dress and customer confusion, and I'm happy that I don't have to decide the case. But I do care a lot about design and industrial innovation.
Form follows function, eventually, and good design teams make that happen real-time. Those employed by Apple have, in addition, created product designs that are extremely desirable.
Anyway, the Knight Ridder design study demonstrates how the design goal "deliver news on an interactive device" independently leads to a device largely similar to a Kindle.
Or an iPad, if you like. A thin slab with rounded corners. Design patents can be a lot harder to defend than utility patents. I'm not concluding anything.
A Kindle started out with sharp corners; like a book. However, the "thin slab with rounded corners" is only a tiny part of the complete trade dress patent... only the preamble, if you will. Samscum didn't stop there, but went whole hog. To hear Samscum go on, you'd think it was all about the rectangle, however that's a misdirection.
If Apple wins this, and I think they have a good chance at it, all other tablets will greatly change their appearance to steer well away from Apple's look and feel. Only Microsoft's butt-ugly tiles may escape the carnage-to-come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's funny because I also have a 5 yr old Samsung plasma that's been aces to me and I swear by it. I've always been lucky with consumer electronics now that I think of it.
Sansung does make reasonably good products. I've very happy with my Samsung refrigerator even though it tends to make a sound like a pop-gun now and then for no apparent reason.
Yes your royal highness, please forgive the foolish and flawed mortals.
You're calling out DaHarder aren't you? You could be close to right!
Kind of an odd post given your nic name.
You're awesome!
Are you Apple ][?
How far above everyone else are you? If you're so advanced let me know. Perhaps I'll pay for your IQ test. However, if I pay for it I hold ownership and will post it on this site often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni
Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
Let's see this example in real life.
Most tech-savvy people are probably not fashion savvy. Let me ask you. What's the difference between a 2000$ Fendi purse at Nordstoms and a 99$ Fendi purse from walmart? Why would you want to spend so much money on the Fendi when the one at walmart does all the same things (stores your money, phone, lipgloss, etc) ?
Walmart has done this ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2007-06-07-walmart-fendi_N.htm ) Now why would a company go out of it's way to make fake purses if it wouldn't fool anyone? The keyword here is "fool." Next time you see a friend who has a luxury brand item (Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Chloe, etc) ask them where they bought it. If they tell you eBay or Chinatown, it's certainly a fake. Do they care? No, they just want to say they have that luxury brand. Not that different from people saying Apple is expensive, but oh here's something that looks exactly the same for less.
(Counterfeits are usually made with PVC or PU, not real leather, and mass produced in China. )
So back to Samsung, maybe their goal was to fool carriers and stores into carrying their devices and saying they're iPads. We already know that electronic stores that have commissioned sales staff push the products with the highest commissions. So passing off Samsung's devices as "cheaper iPads and iPhones" to people who think an "iPad" is what a Tablet is called and iPhone is what a smartphone is called.
As for trademark dilution, there are certainly cases where trademarks become somewhat genericized, but that's usually not because of competition, but rather the brand of the competitors is forgettable or confusing. If someone on the street asked you for a "Galaxy" would you know that they meant a phone or tablet?
The point is of course that 'copying a style' isn't copying at all in a legal sense, unless they use the same name and logo.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
The point is of course that 'copying a style' isn't copying at all in a legal sense, unless they use the same name and logo.
J.
Not necessarily true. Confusion of consumers is a concern. Remember that cabbage patch kids fiasco? When Dr. Joyce Brothers was brought in as an expert witness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
You're awesome!
Are you Apple ][?
How far above everyone else are you? If you're so advanced let me know. Perhaps I'll pay for your IQ test. However, if I pay for it I hold ownership and will post it on this site often.
You're displaying your IQ with such a post. No test req'd.
What we see being revealed in this trial is precisely why companies prefer to settle. Apple is forced to unmask past prototypes and steps in its design process. Samsung is forced to reveal embarrassing analysis it conducted. What will be the net gain or loss for each?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
Are you telling me 35% of consumers don't know what an iPad is and who makes it? What dark bottomless cave are these people living in?
Who's living in the cave? You believe most people care about this sort of stuff. I was rather surprised 65% do know.
The amount of money is not the issue.
What Apple wants out of this is for Samsung to stop copying and for the court to rule that Samsung illegally copied their designs and infringed their patents. Samsung has already started to move away from the iPad and iPhone slavish copies, so Apple can get the first part without a court decision. I expect that Samsung will settle rather than risk getting a court decision that they illegally copied a competitor (and the evidence so far is pretty convincing).
Yes, you can bury your head in the sand if you wish and pretend that it's all the public's fault. But ask yourself - when was the last time someone wanted bought a Ford but thought they were buying a Honda? When was the last time someone flew on American but thought they were flying on United?
Samsung has made an obvious attempt to copy Apple's designs so exactly as to foster confusion. Not only did their tablets look almost exactly like the iPad and their phones looked almost exactly like the iPhone, but they even made their packaging and cables look nearly identical. Heck, until the latest "Apple users are sheep" ads, they even made their ads similar. EVEN IF you accept that only idiots would confuse the two (which is clearly a false assumption since even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference), Samsung's deliberate attempts to confuse consumers by making the products nearly identical is wrong and should be punished. And the way the court case is going, they probably WILL be punished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Not necessarily true. Confusion of consumers is a concern. Remember that cabbage patch kids fiasco? When Dr. Joyce Brothers was brought in as an expert witness?
No, I don't remember that.
If a product is clearly branded and has a minimal form - as is the case for tablets - its very hard to make a court case out of it.
The 'evidence' presented is extremely weak, remember that all cars look the same from a distance, especially for the untrained eye, and nobody is complaining about that.
Also, car design features are heavily 'borrowed', but nobody is complaining about that; only if you add false logos and advertise it as a car from another brand you will get into trouble.
And nobody with a feel for aesthetics will mistake a Samsung for an Apple.
Case closed.
J.
Exactly. But are you agreeing or disagreeing?
I believe in evolution because the scientific data is overwhelming to show that the theory is true. There is also a definition for a belief system, such as religion, but they are both defined as beliefs. There is nothing metaphysical about the first definition.
I think I see what you're getting at but the OAD3 shows that the word belief is more than just for something that can't be proven. I also know of no scientific designation that would specify a difference in the way that hypothesis and theory are unique terms and yet used interchangeably in colloquial speak.
OK - you are distinguishing between those kinds of belief. Fair enough, but Im not sure the distinction really exists. A key element of belief is that it does not require knowledge or evidence to sustain it (as we see ubiquitously), and by corollary, it can be impervious to contrary evidence. That's my reason for rejecting it as a part of the scientific method.
The chump from Best Buy could also talk real fast, flash a flat electronic device and say, "you want one of these, right?" and the customer could say "yeh, yeh" and walk out of the store with a Touchpad. This is just like the Pepsi Test Challenge, designed to confuse the consumer so they would think it is comparable or equal to the leading brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bishop
I am far more likely to belive 89% of people surveyed were stupid enough not to understand there is a difference between the Galaxy Tab and an IPad. You can't blame Samsung for stupid people who can't read a label.
Thank goodness for Apple that same "stupid" gene pool statistically would make up the jury...makes the win that much easier...
funny thing, i think that attack was deleted... (i read it quoted in another post)
why insult someone, then take it back?...
BTW, the moderators are REAL people not a computer... so your "turing test" to see of the mods are real, is a bad idea... not to mention your posts(dasanman69) if deleted might not be missed...
<strong>why would you be kidding about a personal attack on a moderator?</strong> "just don't do it" to paraphrase the "NIKE" slogan....