Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Australia
lukehopewell1 writes "Apple has obtained an injunction from an Australian court effectively blocking the sale of the new Android Honeycomb-powered Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v. Apple Australia claims that the unit infringes on 10 of the Cupertino, California-based company's patents including the slide to unlock functionality as well as the edge-bounce feature. Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property."
Thanks for the review Apple!
Old is new once again!
I am fully confident that this thread will demonstrate the utmost civility of Slashdot users.
KDE3 Kopete and Konqueror had edge bounce (removed from KDE4 due to ugly code). Apple now infridge 9 patents.
We will play a game, everybody invalidate one patent until they run out.
Guess these new Adroid tablets may be worth taking a look at if they have Apple this scared. Course they could just be a bunch of jerks... hard to tell these days.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's blocked UNTIL Apple can prove they infringed? Australia, crushing due process harder than the U.S. since 1994.
Bob Katter is that you?
Why does it have to be one or the other? EIther way the Galaxy Tab does look pretty cool, then again I said I was going to wait for the Asus "Slider" tablet.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I agree. It sounds like it must be good enough to have Apple scared.
What the hell? If you get sued you have to send three review units to your competitor for analysis?
Uhh... can I get three Galaxy Tabs if I sue Samsung too?
Apple haven't made a decent product in years, they can hardly be called innovators, they're just a marketing monster. And when someone does something vaguely distasteful to them, they sue them. Maybe Apple is just a branch of the Cult of $cientology.
The fact that Apple have such market share is proof that society is slowly getting dumber and dumber.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Guess the company?
Q1: 1998: They are so concerned about their lack of innovation, they need a huge pack of lawyers to prevent competition.
Q2: 2011: They are so concerned about their lack of innovation, they need a huge pack of lawyers to prevent competition.
A1: Microsoft
A2: Apple
I'm sorry, this little pup is not buying apple, itunes or any other of their product range or services ever again (That's about $2K/year they are down). I've just bought an Android Tablet today. viva la difference.
Sounds like they hired Darl McBride to head up Apple's legal team.
Seriously, if "Slide to Lock" deserves a patent, someone in the USPTO should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.
I'm presuming that the patents in question were granted within the United States of America.
A few questions are floating around my head:
* How exactly does United States patent law apply to a Korean company selling products within Australia?
* Why is this not being addressed against Samsung within the United States where the patent was presumably granted?
* Is this tied to the relatively recent free trade agreements between Australia and the United States? Is Korea not a partner?
Apple's legal counsel Christian Dimitriadis
Said the Ipad 2 was "fooly sikh" and that Apple "wants if fuckin money fuckin".
Meanwhile
Samsung's legal counsel Neil Murray
Said that Apple was being a "wuss and should harden up" and that their counsel was a "flamin galah" stating that this case was "a few tinny's short of a six pack". He also commented elected to inform apple on "where to stuff ya bloody law suit".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
theft of the UI
oh fuck off, if you're going to talk about it in terms of theft then apple stole the "grid of icons" UI
Get your grammar right before advertising your stuff (which you should not do) over here.
black market Galaxy Tab 10.1vs flood Australia.
Yeah, that's Apple being scared. It's definitely not your wishful thinking projecting emotions onto a business decision.
They're trying to block the entry of a competitor via the legal system as opposed to competing with them once the product is released.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Can't Samsung use its political connections to block iPad in the whole of East of Asia?
If you can "steal" the UI just by looking at it, what valuable information do the patents hold?
And if the patents don't hold valuable information, how do they "promote the progress of
science and useful arts"?
This looks like the patent here Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image .
It's already in the process of being rejected due to a re-examination, "Claim 1 is not novel (and lack an inventive step) in light of the prior art document"
Although it doesn't help they have 21months before it will lapse due to the rejection.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
I fear you misunderstand the patent system. There generally aren't licensing fees, and if there are then they're guaranteed to be exorbitant as IP owners can charge what they wish. If you can get the patent granted, than you can do whatever you wish with both the patent subject and the people unlucky enough to have implemented it. Read up about submarine patents and you'll understand what I mean.
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
Cheap Android tablets: so versatile. (Note: don't click if you can't take a joke.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Someone must have the "Wipe to Clean" patent on cleaning your butt. That's only reason I can explain the abundance of crap patents like "Slide to Unlock." I'll be submitting my patent for "Pour into Glass" for beverages; I'm sure to make a killing.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Because Sumsung's Android gear has been selling so well they've decided to no longer report the numbers, to ...um... not make anyone jealous. You can see why Apple might be shaking in their boots.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
is the reason I do not own a Mac. It is the reason I do not own an iPod or an iPad or an iPhone. And am unlikely to ever do so.
The patent system may be broken, but it is not the patent system that is killing technology, it is Apple. If they can't make all the money from it, then no-one can. I believe that is Mr Jobs' philosophy.
Well, Mr Jobs, you can stick your technology where the sun don't shine.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Because Sumsung's Android gear has been selling so well they've decided to no longer report the numbers, to ...um... not make anyone jealous. You can see why Apple might be shaking in their boots.
Could you have found a more biased site. They readily admit they are paid by Apple. Besides that proves nothing. If Apple isn't scared, why are they trying to get the courts to prevent Samsung from selling a much demanded competing product. Sorry if this shatters your fanboyish delusions.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Only a douchebag Apple-user would use a a moshpit analogy.
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
oh well a registered account, do you feel special? your link ignores everything prior to 2007 but just so you know the world did exist before the iphone.
were apple first with a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with a grid of icons on a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with apps on a touchscreen phone? No.
I can see you have difficulty believing that such things existed before 2007 and that these 'magical' things could not have been invented by anyone but apple, but samsung didn't 'steal' any ideas any more than apple 'stole' those ideas, you can't have it both ways.
I like apple, and i like most of their products, but i hate douchebags who act as if apple are the inventors of everything its ok when apple takes ideas from others but not when others take ideas from apple.
They've had a massive rise in profitability that anyone who isn't stuck in a cave can't have missed. However, what some people don't seem to realize is it has almost entirely been in a new market, consumer electronics, not their computer division. Their computer sales have gone up, but not near to the levels of their consumer electronics and only after the CE products made them a name.
So if they want to keep that profitability, and all companies want that, they have to keep that market.
For a time, no problem. It started with the iPod which became a fashion accessory. People didn't get MP3 players, they got iPods. It was what was cool to have and nobody could compete because nobody else could make an iPod. Well that market is pretty saturated these days. People don't buy new MP3 players all the time, and the iPod fashion has faded a bit (though it is still strong). So while it makes them money, it doesn't make them money like it used to.
Enter the iPhone and now iPad. The iPhone did great because it captured a new part of the smartphone market: casual users. Other smartphones were very business oriented, the iPhone was for consumers who wanted a toy. The iPad of course went in to a new market entirely, since tablets like it really aren't competition for full out tablet PCs.
All is well and Apple makes billions... However Android is a real threat to that. It has become extremely good and has been eating away at the iPhone market (and everyone else's). The tablet market was safe, but now it is entering there. It has a ways to go but is getting better at a rapid pace, Google improves it very quickly.
Apple is seeing their consumer electronics markets evaporate, turn in to regular commodity markets where you have to compete on price which Apple has never done well. This won't kill Apple, but it could seriously shrink them and companies view that as just as bad.
So they have to attack and try and stop it, in any way they can.
I just hope they don't succeed. I don't want a world where only one company can provide certain kinds of technology. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer.
Whats wrong with developing your own bloody IP? Oh, right, its hard. Copying is easy, right, I get it.
Instead of creating their own unique solution and taking the necessary years to flesh it out and polish it, Samsung took the short route and got a tad too inspired by the successful products of their biggest customer. Guess what, its coming back to bite them. Hard. Surprised? Me, hardly. Is Apple being a bitch by suing? I'd do the same if I was working for years on refining a product, while only to have found it ripped off by a bunch of Me, too! companies which just can't figure it out by themselves.
Toss off the leeches, Apple. You've been bogged down by one who grew big on your innovations before, and the result was the festering mess that is the Wintel desktop, annoying the crap out of millions of users every day. Don't let it happen again. For the doom of mankind.
Who makes the screens in the iPad?
LG
Your logic doesn't pass the sniff test on several levels. I'd bother with rebutting specifics but you're so far from reality it's kinda pointless.
You'd do better to look past your own biases when performing these analyses, assuming you want your opinion to mean anything outside of an echo chamber of people predisposed to agreeing with you.
Between the wholesale theft of the UI
Right. So, how many UI elements has Apple copied from other OSes and projects? Several hundreds? And that is not wrong, but when someone copies from Apple it suddenly becomes wrong?
Personally I feel being able to patent _ideas_ is downright stupid altogether, you should only be able to patent a specific implementation and even then copyright-laws actually do a better job of protecting a specific implementation. Being able to copy good ideas and improve on them is a GOOD thing for all end-users, it's bad only for the company who doesn't want their competitors to be able to enter the same market.
better call the lawyers!
apple are being fucking hypocrites
I think Samsung only has pull in Korea. They both have a lot of money to throw around.
You are wrong, but i wont bother explaining why, just assume by the complicated sentences i put together, that i am smarter then you and shut up
There, i reworded your post a bit.
Honestly, i try to NOT be an asshole online, but whenever i see people trying to win an argument with a post that is essentially null in terms of content, i cant help myself
People, what a bunch of bastards
If you read about the 10.1 tab, the design been released in Australia is different from the US one. The reason apple want version of it is to see if it violates the same claims, which 1/2 of them are about design - ie coped the IPAD etc. Samsung will be happy to do this - because they can get damages from apple if the hold up was without merit.
It might work in China, but for the rest, I believe they have a judiciary system that is a bit autonomous so I guess it's going to be complex.
That said, it's obviously easier for Apple since they were first to market. Samsung can hardly say "they copied us with their new iPad" since Samsung themselves (with Google obviously) cloned the iPhone and the iPad for so long.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
+1 Funny obligatory.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I am wondering what kind of influence Samsung has in China to make you think it might work there.
Thats all I have to say on the topic.... oh and F you APPLE!!
I'm just saying having influence in China might be enough to ban a product entirely from the country, although the iPad has a bit of exposure. Now, I don't think Samsung has any - or at least not that much.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Cash and bribe is how justice and other forms of business work in China.
About 250,000 Chinese employees and hundreds of acres of factories. Apple has a few stores, however...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
It's not just ACs that "rewrite history"; I was using SPB Mobile Shell with widgets and grids of icons on a Samsung 830w back in Feb 2007 - well before the iPhone was released. Worked great, too - configurable, easy access, and even had a slide-out keyboard similar to the Blackberry phones.
As far as I can tell and remember, the iPhone was little more than a pretty feature phone - no apps (I was a regular user of Handango back then, plenty of apps for the WM platform), no Exchange support, no cut-and-paste, no multitasking, little more than what most LG and Samsung and Nokia feature phones offered. And considerably less functionality than the Symbian and Windows Mobile smartphones offered.
But it looked pretty, and Apple is great at marketing...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy. Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exactly what it did to Microsoft. What I'm interested to know is - have opinions revised themselves so that the original Apple lawsuit is considered a bad overreach (remember that Apple only lost on a licensing technicality) - or is this another "when it's done to Microsoft it's good/when it's done to Android it's bad" case of Slashdot cognitive dissonance?
name some.
Plus, what about the smart case thing?
Samsung got caught. they stole the look and feel of iOS2 and 3.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
Multiple sources according to CNET : "Industry online paper DigiTimes is also reporting that Chimei Innolux will also help in producing screen replacement units for iPads along with LG Display and Samsung Electronics."
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Apple doesn't use OLED screens, Samsung so far hasn't proven itself in the tablet market unlike in the smartphone market and even there it can't touch Apple's volume. Doesn't seem so scary to me.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
I'll agree the gloves are definitely off and no punches are being pulled but it's no use blaming the player for the rules of the game. Patent reform is the only thing that will end this once and for all.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
name some.
Research some computer history, like for example Xerox PARC and the Star desktop and work from there. What, you thought Apple has invented ALL UI elements and paradigms? Copying of UI elements has been done for tens of years. And we'd still be in the stone ages of computing if it hadn't been allowed in the beginning, ergo it's a good thing.
Plus, what about the smart case thing?
Samsung got caught. they stole the look and feel of iOS2 and 3.
I never commented on that.
Could you have found a more biased site. They readily admit they are paid by Apple.
Citation needed. If you can provide I'll happily ignore them from now on.
Besides that proves nothing.
If Apple isn't scared, why are they trying to get the courts to prevent Samsung from selling a much demanded competing product.
They are protecting their IP, it's protect it or lose it. I don't like the patent system as it exists but I also know it doesn't pay to try to be a lamb when you are surrounded by wolves.
Sorry if this shatters your fanboyish delusions.
Arguments, not insults please.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Honestly, i try to NOT be an asshole online
You are failing. Perhaps you should try harder.
Old is new once again!
Oh, come on. Find me one patent with a claim that says "1. [entirely known method] performed on a computer" or "1. [entirely known method] performed on a mobile computing device." And if you can't point to any claims, but just a title, or just an abstract, or just a line in a specification that describes computing devices, then no, you have not succeeded. There are no patents that have that claim.
Now, there are patents that have dependent claims like that. Example:
1. A method for [entirely new process], comprising [performing entirely new process] on a network.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the network is the Internet."
That's a technique called claim differentiation. Claim 2 is narrower than claim 1, so if claim 2 says "the network is the Internet," then the network in claim 1 must include both the Internet, and other networks like your LAN. But claim 2 also includes that [entirely new process] bit, so it's still not a "[entirely known method] but on the internet" patent. This ends up confusing a lot of people, yourself included.
...Allows an individual to avoid buying anything (digital or physical) from Apple, and even avoid installing any of their software on any computer. I Hereby grand a Royalty Free, World Wide license to everyone in the world, so that anyone can implement this technology in the course of their day to day lives, and thus save money. And I am totally fair, as I allow and even encourage Apple to import this technology to Australia.
What a piece of shit company.
Seriously what a piece of shit company.
I don't know about the Slashdot crowd, but I never bought into the "look and feel" argument. I didn't then, and I don't now.
Does it bother you when you buy a shirt that its design is almost surely patterned after the look and feel of current fashion? This is because (unless big fashion and Lawyers can change it) fashion isn't so restricted. And I don't see anyone in the real world that complains that fashion trends propagate too quickly through the market. We shouldn't sue when trends propagate quickly through our computer interfaces for EXACTLY the same reason: Allowing this is best for the CONSUMER.
And there is no constitutional justification for slowing progress to benefit anyone, not even Oprah or Apple (the biggest two sacred relics of the current day)
A much demanded product? Really? Seems you might be suffering from your own brand of fanboyish delusions!
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't they first attempt a legal block, and if that fails, compete in the marketplace? This way they can "protect" their "IP" while they continue to compete.
Sure, it's a shitty thing to do, but there's no reason they can't do both at the same time. In fact, there's usually pretty good (selfish) reasons to go this way.
Don't like it? Call your local government and request patent reform.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Um I believe Apple is buying LED backlit LCD screens from LG so why would Apple be screwed?
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Yes Apple sells fewer iPhones than all Android phones. However Apple sells more iPhones than any single manufacturer's Android phones. Also Apple makes more profit than the all the Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
Apple didn't sue Google, or LG, or Acer, or Cherry, or Sony, or all the Android manufacturers. They've sued Samsung over specific phone models. They've sued HTC over specific patents. They've sued Motorola over specific patents. In the cell phone industry, everyone seems to be suing each other.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Research some computer history, like for example Xerox PARC and the Star desktop and work from there
First of all if you did your research, you would have learned that Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas. Second, Apple borrowed the ideas of Xerox like the concept of the GUI and the thought of using the mouse as a pointer. Apple however had to develop the system and implementation on their own. If you ever saw the Star you would have seen that Apple didn't exactly copy it any more than GEOS copied both of them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It is much demanded, despite being rather expensive.
In fact, the only thing that would stop me from buying it, was that they've copied Apple feature: no expansion slot.
But superior build quality, amazing screen and (still) open platform are still there (yet?). I hope they won't copy it all from Apple or I'll have to look for another tablet.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
Apple seems to want to have a government-enforced monopoly in its product areas. The problem for suppliers is that Apple has quite a bit of volume. But, the suppliers supply more than just Apple. If the choices are between an Apple-only market volume and an everybody-but-Apple market volume, they'd probably chose to drop Apple as a customer.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
were apple first with a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with a grid of icons on a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with apps on a touchscreen phone? No.
The Newton Message Pad did all that except being a phone in 1993... oh, that was Apple.
Apple has a very big and growing market in the hole world that is increasing day by day.
I'm glad I don't live in the "hole" world. Sounds like a bad porn movie.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Well, Apple has come full circle here. Back in the 80s they were the underdog and were pushing for a more level playing field. Remember the "1984" commercial when they went after IBM/Microsoft? I think there's a general disdain for companies when they become too successful or too big. A few years ago Google was the darling of the Technorati but now with the privacy concerns raised recently and some of the E-Mails floating around in the Oracle/Google legal case it seems that they're just like every enterprise out there.
Personally, I won't buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Why? Restrictions on content/use and frankly I can get better quality from other manufacturers. My kids have Ipod Nanos, etc. but I won't use them nor do I subscribe to the thought that I have to have vendor lock in which is what Apple wants you to have. It's a throwback to the early days of the automobile when Henry Ford went on to making his own tires for his cars. Then again he was a nutcase as well who went on to build projects like Fordlandia presumably to break up the tire monopolies at the time when in fact he wanted to create his own utopian society. When business leaders start building their own version of society we suddenly are in a James Bond Plot.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Saying android is a clone of iPhone is a bit like saying that iPhone is a clone of a Palm Treo. Other than the addition of a multi-touch capacitive screen and a somewhat more streamlined interface, the iPhone was not innovative other than it's marketing and building on a successful MP3 player brand. The similarities between an iPhone and an Android phone as analogous to the similarities between a Palm device and an iPhone. Increasing screen size doesn't exactly make it a unique platform either.
AJ Henderson
Or, perhaps, Apple believes that Samsung is... you know... infringing on their patents. It's not as if Apple is the only player in the industry suing others for patent violations, after all. I seem to recall a recent settlement in which Apple will be paying large amounts of money to Nokia.
I've seen a lot of rabid and mindless hatred of Apple on Slashdot. What I've not seen is a detailed breakdown of the patents in question, and a refutation of Apple's claim that Samsung has violated them.
Imagine all the people...
> Apple seems to want to have a government-
> enforced monopoly in its product areas.
Eh... that's the whole point of a patent in the first place.
Imagine all the people...
You get a gold star for being the first to make me laugh out loud this morning.
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
. . . litigate. Come on fanbois, I want to hear how this is "innovative" and "no one has ever done it before". Better yet, tell me how this is Apple "making a better product". Is Apple a law firm now, as well as marketing company?
PS - Apple is still a member of MPEG-LA and BSA, right beside Microsoft.
Nathan's blog
I still don't see it being much demanded by anyone at this point. Maybe it will be, but right now aside from a few tech geeks and a few favorable reviews it seems to be selling just as well as any other iPad competitor at this point.
If you can't make a better product, sue, sue, and sue.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Without the ability of competing projects to copy each other, we would all be stuck with System 6.
This simple fact is obvious to those of us that actually understand technology and have some experience with it.
Apple fanboys don't fully appreciate the situation that even Apple is in and what would happen in a patent MAD scenario with corresponding 17 year periods of TOTAL STAGNATION enforced by the current state of patent law.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You must be confusing a very vocal fanboy minority from the 90s with the user community at large.
I was here and I certainly didn't argue that Apple was right in it's actions.
Although many of us liked to point out the hypocrisy of "freedom to innovate" rhetoric. Doing that and advocating that "Microsoft should be punished" are two VERY different things.
The only cognitive dissonance here is in your own head.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Innovations by Apple, that the Treo didn't have:
1. Threaded SMS
2. Visual voice mail
3. Unlimited data plan. And don't say this wasn't Apple, it was.
4. "virgin device" meaning nobody other than apple installed shitloads of crap on your device.
5. A browser that works
6. A phone that doesn't crash when it rings. Ok, let's just say more stability.
7. *much* more intuitive UI
8. A screen beautiful with kick ass vieweing angles.
9. A touchscreen that is very responsive, down to the fact that it was actually useable.
10. A device on which you could listen to music and receive a phone call without having to go and stop your music. The music would resume after the call. Looks dumb today, but who did it before?
Now, what did Android bring to the table?
First, we can dump all hardware and service oriented innovations as Android is just software.
It brings... well,... the source code? An adaptation to different form factors?
To be fair, I'm not that familiar with Android, so I'll let you fill in the blanks. But the fact that they shifted directions so radically AFTER the release of the iPhone should be a clear indication of where they got their inspiration from.
Now, Samsung devices are a clear rip-off. I'm not saying it's bad or good, I'm just saying they went to the last mile to copy the iPhone and the iPad.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The USPTO has absolutely messed up in this area!!! This technology group really operates differently than the others in the USPTO.
There is a difference between copying an idea and copying a design. It's the reason Apple didn't request an injunction against RIM over the PlayBook or Motorola over the Xoom. These products are distinguishable from the iPad in Apple's eyes. Now if you argue that design patents shouldn't exist then no company can protect the designs for which they may have invested significant amounts of R&D. There are those of us who think it would not be a good thing if any company can rip off another companies designs.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
LG for the majority, plus Samsung and Innolux, with other suppliers in the pipeline.
Apple doesn't need them, see above.
Apple is still the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world, although Samsung is a close second. Android wins when you combine the sales of a dozen or so companies.
Context. Microsoft strong-arming Android phone manufacturers was obvious, they couldn't compete because of an inferior product, so used the legal system to hurt the competition.
Right now Apple is on top. Apple has the hottest-selling products and makes the most profit by far. Apple got to this position purely through making and marketing a better product.
To me the context says not "We can't compete on product so we'll sue" but instead says "Quit copying our stuff!"
Apple also is taking action against HTC and Motorola, both bit players in the market. Motorola is having problems selling the small number of Xooms shipped, and the HTC Flyer isn't doing well either.
So it can't be that the Galaxy is good enough to have Apple scared.
Now we really need to kill these stupid patents. People stop buying apple, send them a message, tell them they are pathetic as a company and we just will not accept it anymore. Seriously, patents are the new way to destroy the economy, kill small business, and play games at high level. Every large corporation is suing a different one, so many bs patents exist that I could not compete if I wanted to. It has gotten ridiculous. People are dying because medical patents are being fought over, now you have big corporate loosers crying over pennies.
In the early 90s. It was called the Newton. But it suffered from scope creep and not having the technology available. Even then it was quite innovative -- the ARM processor was developed in an Apple partnership with ACORN and VLSI for the Netwon.
Microsoft started talking about a vision for tablets that failed in the marketplace. Specifically, shoehorning a desktop operating system into a tablet form factor, usually requiring a pen to work right. It didn't work. Few bought it. Apple succeeded because the operating system was designed for touch-based handhelds. Microsoft saw this coming when they scuttled their upcoming Windows tablet right after the launch of the original iPad.
Yes, the App Store was genius, but it's because it broke the standard model of the cell companies. They always want to nickel-and-dime on your bill for every little feature. Apple wanted it open for development, people adding any functionality they want without a dime going to the cell company. AT&T had a long iPhone exclusivity because AT&T demanded it in return for taking such a risk on the new business model.
Android has a lot to thank Apple for, not only in introducing new hardware and software innovations to follow, but for using its clout to fundamentally shift the cell phone business to allow what Android now takes for granted.
It was a hell of a risk for Apple to take. The previous foray in the form of the ROKR was a flop. High risk taken to success deserves payoff. Android makers aren't taking much of a risk, just following the Apple-paved road.
Here's what Android looked like 2007. Oh, 2007, the year the iPhone was released - completely different UI.
http://pocketnow.com/android/remember-this-early-android-demo-video
In 2008 it was completely revamped.
Anyhow, Apple has promised to pay Samsung damages should its injunction be found invalid. So Apple believes it has a strong case, and if not, well, free money from Apple, and they didn't have to sell one device to earn it. (Not that the first mover advantage would've helped - those in AU who wanted it would've imported it much more cheaply from the US than buy it retail...).
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
They do need to be defended to be respected however. If there are lots of violations of a particular patent in the wild, then it will seem less dangerous to other companies who want to make money off the patented idea without having to license. By vigorously defending the patent, it shows other would be opportunists that they should try some other idea to rip off for their personal gain. Better to be a hard target then a soft one.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
1. Internet search says Treo had Threaded SMS prior to iPhone.
2. VVM was an innovation but isn't relevant to a discussion on tablets.
3. Unlimited Data existed before smart phones were even popular for feature phones.
4. This is not an innovation, it is simply a manufacturer having enough leverage to demand conditions to the carrier.
5. This is not an innovation, it is simply better design of a feature that already existed. It isn't innovation unless it is a new feature, otherwise it is just improving on what it copied.
6. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
7. The main UI for selecting apps is very similar, the applications are just better developed with stricter coding guidelines and a storefront that enforces them (this was arguably the one actual innovation with the iPhone.)
8. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
9. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
10. There were apps that could do this for treo.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the iPhone was not a giant step forward in terms of design, but it was NOT innovative. It did not change the basic way we design or use smartphones, it was just a much better implementation of existing thought processes. Other companies have made there own hardware designs running with it's own variations and are no different. They are perhaps not as much of a jump forward in design by some people's view, but I would consider my Asus Transformer for example to be a substantial jump forward from an iPad in relation to what matters to me.
As for Android, I think maybe part of the issue is you don't realize how different Android actually is from iOS. The platforms are very different under the hood. They have a similar look and feel to the extend of a home screen that has icons on it, but that is a carry over from PalmOS days and prior. The level of similarities between Android and iOS really are comparable to the similarities between iOS and PalmOS. I'm not saying they are the same at all, but I'm also arguing that Android and iOS are not the same at all. They use some common design improvements and go their own ways in others. Since they are design improvements and not innovations that are being copied (with the arguable exception of the app store idea), they really are no more a copy than the iPhone was from the Treo.
AJ Henderson
but the free-trade-agreement allows us to sell Beef to the US in 2017, that must be worth something, unless the US dollar falls or Congress doesn't pass the bill that satisfies their side of the agreement ... what could go wrong ?
Apple started designing a tablet in the early 2000s, and refocused that effort to making a multi-touch (not just touch) phone in 2005. In January 2007 this effort was introduced as the iPhone, which would be available some months later. Looks like SPB had a month to tweak their UI after they saw what Apple did.
Apple usually starts with a solid basic product to prove a concept, with a vision for how to bring it to maturity in steps, such as the App Store one year later.
The lack of cut&paste and multitasking are an example of that evolution. Apple couldn't initially figure out how to make either of them work WELL, and wasn't going to include anything half-assed. It was going to take time. The result: Their cut&paste is absolutely the best and their multitasking preserves battery life, and system stability and performance. I have an Android, and the cut&paste sucks, and the multitasking is hell.
They are protecting their IP, it's protect it or lose it. I don't like the patent system as it exists but I also know it doesn't pay to try to be a lamb when you are surrounded by wolves.
This point is often raised, but here's an interesting fact for you: despite having a bunch of patents of its own, Google has yet to sue anyone for patent infringement.
The "grid of icons" concept has been present in mobile phones for years before iPhone - just remember Nokia's S60 (2001).
Oh come on - they merely switched focus to touchscreens once it became apparent how dominant they were going to be. They already had a touchscreen version that wasn't so different from what it turned in to; the main difference being more tweaking towards touch-friendliness (bigger, touch-oriented elements and no keypad fallbacks). That isn't really a massive revamp at all.
Would you like a slice of toast?
I take your meaning, but it's supposed to be specific inventions, not product areas. Not that I'm naive enough to believe the 1787 rationale, though.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
from 1993.
Better design is innovation.
I don't like the iPhone because it's too locked down for me, but lets not lie to make ourselves feels better, m;kay?
The great and powerful wikipedia says:
Although the term is broadly used, innovation generally refers to the creation of better or more effective products, processes, technologies, or ideas that affect markets, governments, and society.
Are good ol' friend Merriam says:
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
I don't think very many people on /. actually know what innovation means.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most companies would really like to have that kind of rapid erosion.
Minor detail, it is "our" not "are" good ol' friend Marriam and that definition agrees with me.
An innovation is the introduction of something new. A new idea, method or device. The ideas, methods and device were equivalent in function but better in design. It was a better implementation of a given concept, but was not a new concept. Since Android does not use the same implementation of the concept, Apple is not innovating in some way that Samsung copied any more than Apple copied it from the predecessors they improved on.
The Wikipedia definition might consider design to be innovation, but it might not. It is less clear than the Marrian Webster definition and it only says what it generally is used to refer to.
Either way, it's semantics. My point is that they things that while the iPhone was better designed than previous smartphones, the things that Android copied have existed in PDAs and smart phones for long before the iPhone. (With the exception of the app market, but I don't really see the idea of having a store to get apps as being innovative as it existed in other platforms prior to the introduction to handhelds (see Steam).) So as it relates to this case, Apple is full of crap.
AJ Henderson
If Apple considers it a threat to their devices, that only decreases any potential interest from me...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
a bit like saying that iPhone is a clone of a Palm Treo
Hah, I think I'd prefer an iPhone running PalmOS to one running iOS...hey neither one had Flash and both only have "fast app switching" in place of true multitasking, so the only thing you're sacrificing is some of the games...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Did too - had this on my Tro 650 at least, IIRC the 180 had it as well.
2. That is a telco feature.
3. It wasn't Apple. This is a telco feature, smart guy. Had this on my 650 and 180.
4. BZZT, wrong. Had this on my 180 and 650, purchased unlocked. All PalmOS devices had this apart from some later Treos.
5. Subjective. Blazer was decent, and you could install any browser you liked.
6. Subjective. The treos I had were very stable.
7. Intuitive? I don't know about that but to this day, PalmOS is the most streamlined GUI for smartphone use I've ever used.
8. Later phones have higher resolutions, how shocking! Are you going to say more processing power next? I never noticed a viewing angle problem on a PDA, being personal devices for use by 1 person.
9. Treos were actually better - the resistive screen was more accurate and could be operated with objects other than a bare finger (not fingernail). "Responsiveness" is totally up to software, and the Treos were very fast
10. I'm pretty sure the Treo 650 had this feature.
So did you pull all of that out of your ass or do you think the original Palm Pilot was the only PalmOS device?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm not sure if respect is the right word, but this situation is far less important than a trademark violation. Also, I would say that generally speaking, the defendant in a patent lawsuit tends to be the one better categorized as a 'target,' particularly in fields like smartphones where it's practically impossible to not be infringing countless patents.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In January 2007 this effort was introduced as the iPhone, which would be available some months later. Looks like SPB had a month to tweak their UI after they saw what Apple did.
SPB Mobile Shell was announced in August 2006 with preliminary screen shots leaked in September 2006. Looks like Apple had 3-4 months to tweak their UI after they saw what SPB did, and 2-3 months to further tweak their UI after actual hands-on with a shipping product.
Unless you mean you want to rewrite that history again?
Apple usually starts with a solid basic product to prove a concept, with a vision for how to bring it to maturity in steps, such as the App Store one year later.
The lack of cut&paste and multitasking are an example of that evolution. Apple couldn't initially figure out how to make either of them work WELL, and wasn't going to include anything half-assed. It was going to take time. The result: Their cut&paste is absolutely the best and their multitasking preserves battery life, and system stability and performance.
Correct - it was a featurephone - not a smartphone - when it started. No downloadable applications, no multitasking (it still does not have real multitasking, like Symbian or Windows Mobile), both of which most consider as required for a smartphone. It was a pretty featurephone, and that's about it.
No history rewrite needed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
were apple first with a touchscreen phone? No. were apple first with a grid of icons on a touchscreen phone? No. were apple first with apps on a touchscreen phone? No.
The Newton Message Pad did all that except being a phone in 1993... oh, that was Apple.
And the IBM Simon was before the Newton...oh, that wasn't Apple. FAIL!
The Newton was under development well before Simon. Years before.
That would be a failing on your part sir,
People are falling off the Apple bandwagon left, right and centre here in Oz, telco's are advertising Android heavily and the purchasers are starting to favour Android over Iphone in Oz. I only know one person who still chooses Apple and he's pretty tragic, the rest have switched to the Samsung Galaxy S 2 or HTC Incredible or Sensation now their 2 year contracts on 3GS' have run out..
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apple borrowed the ideas of Xerox like the concept of the GUI and the thought of using the mouse as a pointer.
oh so when it's apple doing it it's 'borrowing' but when it's anyone else it's 'stealing'. i suppose apple 'borrowed' the idea for their apple tv design from western digital, but if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be screaming that WD 'stole' from apple. fuckwit fanboy hypocrit.
Apple however had to develop the system and implementation on their own.
Just like samsung had to develop their system and implementation on their own.
I had a BlackBerry Pearl for years before I got an iPhone. It had a grid of icons that you accessed using a little track ball.
That phone was a steaming pile of shit from the moment I pulled it out of the box. It was OK as a phone, but the beauty of the BlackBerry design was that it was so annoying to use, you would never, ever, ever want to actually fire up any other application. The music player SUCKED. The browser SUCKED. The Outlook client SUCKED. Even simple things like notifications SUCKED. There was no way to turn off the vibrator; I get 200 emails a day, and that thing was going off constantly. I had to turn it off in order to get work done, them my boss would freak out because he couldn't reach me by phone.
Just having a grid of icons doesn't cut it. I didn't come to the iPhone until #4, but the user experience is so incredibly different that it's like they were invented in different centuries.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
I see what you did there. There are definitely annoying fanbois out there, as there are fandroids.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
Intent? Don't give me intent. That's silly. If they open up a dozen new lawsuits against all the top Android manufacturers, I'll change my tune and agree with you on this point.
But don't forget, Apple did buy these patents in alliance with two other major companies, both of which could be major competitors in the handset/tablet market. WP7 and Java are real platforms, just as Android is. WP7 is pretty innovative. And pretty cool, actually; I'd consider it for a future phone. Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Just like samsung had to develop their system and implementation on their own.
The difference which I suspect is over your head is the idea of the GUI was a new one in Apple's time. They saw what Xerox did, paid them for their ideas, but implemented their own system. Their system advanced on many of the things of the GUI which Xerox did not have like clipping regions and drag and drop. Samsung saw the iPhone and just copied their look and feel. That's a major difference.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You miss the point. This isn't about which phone is better. This is about the fact that none of those Apple UI "inventions" for which they slap people around with patents are innovative in and of themselves.
Either way, it's semantics
We're trying to discuss things that are innovative and you don't agree with our definition of innovation. Then you just dismiss it as being semantics?
Apple is full of crap.
I guess that's all you have to say here. No need to write full length posts.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The Newton was in development from 1987.
But then it was based on the Macintosh, which was sort of based on the Lisa, which took a lot of ideas from the STAR, and the basic idea of pen computing goes back to the 1800s.
Except by that time the iPhone UI would have been long-since finalized. Apple was already nit-picking over individual pixels in the icons.
Unlimited multitasking is horrible for handhelds. The iPhone has had multitasking from the beginning -- it just wasn't available to user apps. Apple knew unlimited multitasking would suck, so didn't include any user app multitasking at all until it could be done right. The instant sleep/wake is perfect for almost all cases, with exceptions for things like music and phone calls through specific controlled APIs.
This is what Apple is going for. They don't want what I get on my Andoid, a background task sucking up the power to make the task I'm working on unresponsive, or interfering with the ability to quickly answer phone calls.
As far as apps, the definition of a smart phone has been sliding. The IBM Simon did a lot less than the original iPhone, and it's considered to be the first smart phone.
Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
My guess would be because Microsoft has a much deeper patent portfolio (believe it or not, Apple didn't invent EVERYTHING). Apple tangled with MS in court before and got their asses handed to them on a platter. Another reason could be the MS has not managed to garner enough of the market to pose a threat to Apple.
Apple fanbois like to have it both ways. First they say Android wholesale copied the iOS UI, then they rant on about how much better (inferring "different") the iOS UI is. I develop on both the iOS and Android platforms and there is absolutely nothing vaguely similar between the two at the API level, so sorry, your "copying" accusation just doesn't hold water.
Have you done any WP7 development? You're point about WP7 being "built from the ground up" is completely bogus. WP7 development is as close to Windows .Net development as possible, given the differences in devices.
My question to you is, do you dislike innovation? It seems to me that if you want Apple to continue to innovate, you would welcome the Android competition (including Samsung) because no other platform is in a position to place as much pressure on Apple to keep improving. Using the courts to shield them from competition is not my idea of innovation.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
1. Did too - had this on my Tro 650 at least, IIRC the 180 had it as well.
2. That is a telco feature.
Which was created by Apple and then pushed by Apple for them to implement. Visual voice mail did not exist for cellphones before that time.
Wow and they say that Apple fanboys have their heads in the clouds but you Palm fanboys take the cake. I don't need to go any further than this point because it demonstrates how bad and/or jaded your memory is.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Meh when Android starts ripping off every detail of iOS like edge bouncing, enough is enough.
Edge bounce....
Like the ball in pong 30+ years ago.
Balls bounce,
Books bounce.
Doors bounce,
Windows bounce in real life...
Doth art imitate life validate a patent?
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The Newton was under development well before Simon. Years before.
Bullshit, Simon was in development long before the Newton.
Samsung saw the iPhone and just copied their look and feel.
look? what is it? rounded corners and a grid of icons, that's nothing new.
if you're arguing they stole the 'feel' then that just means you never used both the iphone and galaxy, they feel completely different in both hardware and software.
and if samsung stole the 'look and feel' of apple's product then apple stole the 'look and feel' of WD's product, but of course you're trying to ignore that.
No, actually, my point is key. An invention isn't just an amorphous concept like "grid of icons". It goes to the implementation of the thing. You can have one grid of icons UI that is basically unusable, and another which looks the same at first glance, but is incredibly useful. It is the details of the implementation that hold the innovation. To say that Apple didn't invent anything because all their UI is is a grid of icons is to ignore the essence of innovation.
Put simply, if they hadn't added their own elements to the equation--by innovating--the iPhone experience would be no different from the BB Pearl experience. You're right that it doesn't matter which is better; they could have invented something that was far worse. But it'd still be an invention.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Apparently you didnt read either Apple's brief nor have actually seen a Galaxy and an IPhone because it's obvious to most people the two can be confused which each other. You know the reason Apple did sue RIM for the Torch? Because it looks nothing like an iPhone. As for WD? You need to spell that out as Western Digital has nothing to do with this case.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I love my android stuff. Apple just shows how crappy they are by running scared telling mommy that droid is beating them up.... If anything were to happen to android I can tell you, I am not buying an apple.
My understanding is you can copyright the code to perform the slide and lock, but can't patent the software idea to perform the slide and lock because it is just the result of code. Or maybe I'm wrong and I need to start applying for patents including a patent to use my butt instead of my finger to manipulate a touch screen.