Slashdot Mirror

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster

Care to toss me a link to an article listing these very specific features?

Quite an admission that you never bothered to actually read Apple's claims.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

Yes, you can obviously make a tablet without fear getting sued by Apple - but Samsung decided they'd rather copy the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo

Is this what you had in mind, when you talk about 'copying design'?

And, obviously, I am not talking about Samsung copying the design...

First of all: until June 2009 the JooJoo/CrunchPad looked notably different: http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/crunchtablet-hits-the-net-a-little-early/, even ignoring the color, the non-flat front is quite obvious. Further, as http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html shows, there are still a number of differences to Apple's claims: not only is the silver bezel missing that both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab have, the JooJoo's screen is also not centered - and its hard to tell what its icons look like. But let's get to the most important point.

The suit in Germany is based on the European Community-Design 000181607-0001 - filed in May 2004

Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

“To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.”
I think the analogy is quite accurate, with the exception of the treasure being something congruous to gold doubloons. To be more accurate, the treasure would magically self-replicate itself – at first from the goldsmith’s treasure chest, and then from each pirate to have pirated a piece; but by doing so, because of the treasure’s self-replicating ability, no one is ever deprived of any of the treasure. Rather, the treasure can be spread to a much greater magnitude of pirates, many of whom may otherwise never have known about the treasure or its (magical) goldsmith. With a much greater pool of fans for his/her gold, the goldsmith would have a better chance of making money off their treasure – by making more treasures, offering them in ways that pirates would be willing to pay for, and even charging pirates to see the goldsmith work his/her magic in person.

how exactly does one "be a party" to someone who made a copy of information? should camera makers be sued to "helping people reproduce artwork"? or photocopier manufacturers be bankrupted because they "allowed someone to copy someone's 'lifes work'"?

No one was deprived of anything, no one was inconvenienced, hell: the distributor may have even made MORE in DVD sales of a movie after people had a chance to see a low quality version of it online.

copyright, in a world that is not limited to the ability to reproduce material, does not work: it's a simple fact. If you go back to your economics 101, when supply and demand controls most markets: and when you have an unlimited supply: what do you get?
let me give you a hint: it's not 0 demand.