Sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab Blocked in the EU

bizwriter writes with a news piece in bnet about the continuing battle between Samsung and Apple. From the article: "In a stunning and painful decision for Samsung, Apple got a German court to issue a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab. According to patent analyst and blogger Florian Mueller, that means Samsung cannot ... sell its tablet in the entire European Union, except for the Netherlands."

Comments

Cant compete, but sue.

[unity100]

Its better to block out competitors by trolling patents than outcompete them isnt it. god bless american companies ..... not.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Cyberllama]

What's unusual is that the Galaxy Tab looks and acts far less like an iPad than the Galaxy S does an iPhone. It's weird that they're gunning so hard after the tablet.

Unless Apple has a patent on the rectangle, I can't see how any court sees a resemblance. Their respective software doesn't look anything alike, and the form factor is basically the same as every tablet ever, including those that preceded the iPad.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[The Dawn Of Time]

Is that what's happening here? Cause what it seems the court saw is that a Korean company decided to take for its own use protected intellectual property.

I guess it's hard to reconcile that with the geek dream that Apple is running scared, though. Also, Microsoft is dying.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[cayenne8]

Hmm...glad I got my nook, and rooted it into an android tablet.

HEY, there's the ticket...have Samsung and all the others....put out VERY powerful ereaders, which can be easily 'hacked' by most any user into a full blown working tablet.

So far, it seems one can put out any type of ereader...just have it easy to 'convert'...and voila...you have a market and Apple can't sue you.

Seems an easy way to get around most any patent that is software or 'use' related...sell the hardware with minimal installed software on board...call it something...but let it be easily altered to install software that raises it to its true potential.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Dunbal]

That's ok, it will just force Samsung to come out with a more innovative product and eat Apple's lunch for them. Not hard to do when your R&D consists of a bunch of lawyers.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry - did you mean to say "can't compete so just copy"?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't get mad at Apple, they didn't issue the design registration to themselves, they simply availed themselves of an opportunity the registrar provided and then used that opportunity to their advantage. To do otherwise would have been stupid. Samsung isn't blameless, they designed a tablet that violates the registration.

Of course the article (repeated by the summary) states the matter in the trollish possible way:

Apple got a German court to issue a preliminary injunction

rather than "A German court issued".

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[nomadic]

I wouldn't get mad at Apple

Yes, we know.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[robmv]

This is what you call intellectual property? a drawing of a rectangular screen with a earphone jack and a data connector

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look and feel" should never ever ever be something restricted by a legal monopoly. That's just stupid.
Compete on actual merit.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up fanboy. It's a PC in slate format. The iPad is a large ipod which is a copy from many other touch screen electronic devices that were around while apple were still using buttons.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bonch]

This is Slashdot, which means anything that runs Linux is automatically the protagonist, even if the product is ripping off someone else's ideas.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bonch]

Whose design R&D consists of a bunch of lawyers? Apple's? You can't be serious.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and why can't Apple sue you? Because the tablet doesn't look like a generic knockoff of their product.

Amazing how that works, too bad nobody let Samsung know about this!

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

No I don't. What I said originally is what counts.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[gorzek]

Yeah, but Apple basically owns the tablet market right now with the iPad. While they've always had an edge in the smartphone market, they can't realistically kill all their competition there. In the world of tablets, however, they run the show and if they can keep everyone else out, so much the better (for Apple.)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[DriedClexler]

If you think "rounded corners on a tablet" is "ripping off Apple's ideas", I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheeheee, I like how you, by force of reason and facts, explained the whole Apple design strategy. You MUST be some sort of top-notch marketing expert/executive?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the Galaxy Tab, and the Galaxy Phones, have not been, from the start, imitations of the iPad and iPhone.

Samsung is all about INNOVATION, clearly, they've demonstrated how well they do it already.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, jackass. Apple invented the rectangle. And rounded edges? No human even had the creativity or brain power let alone technology to accomplish those. And the earphone jack? Come on, headphones were worthless until Apple invented the headphone jack. I'm not even sure why we had headphones before Apple invented the headphone jack. What were our ancestors doing with those things? And the data connector? Jeez. Apple invented data and then invented a connector to transmit that data. It is a well known FACT that there was no data before Apple. The data connector is APPLE's IP to protect. Nobody else can have data connectors.

Put it all together and you see this is CLEAR IP infringement. But, you say, the rectangular shape has been used before the iPad. SO WHAT? Because Apple invented the headphone jack, the data connector, data, rounded edges, the rectangle, and geometry those other products are all LIES.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[myurr]

Hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. And it's clear that poor old Apple is having their intellectual property stolen! Look how similar these other tablets look to Apples invention (forgetting all those that came before and looked like that too).

Truth is that Apple IS running scared. They stole a march on the smartphone market by coming out with a better product than the competition. However they've struggled to keep ahead of the curve and Android phones are outselling the iPhone 5 to 2 with the difference growing all the time. In a few years they'll have retreated all the way back into being a niche supplier charging a big premium for their kit.

They again shook up the tablet sector with a different, better product but Android is starting to catch up with the Samsung tab being the strongest competitor. Apple are absolutely running scared as they can see the same thing that happened with the iPhone happening with the iPad.

That's not to say that the company will fail in any way - merely that they'll be one of many competitors with a sub 20% market share. And that just isn't good enough for their ambitions, which seems to be to provide all the channels via which we consume media which in turn requires a large market share, so they have their lawyers out there fighting for that dream. Apple have a good tech and design team, but they're not good enough to grab that monopoly only through building a better product. The legal route is the only one that can work for them.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[beelsebob]

Its better to outright copy competitors than out innovate and out compete them isn't it. ;)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[The Dawn Of Time]

Yeah, and Apple makes more profit on smartphones than everyone else in the market combined. That's TOTALLY running scared.

Also, this is about tablets. I won't bother linking numbers here because it's 99% Apple, everyone else fighting for scraps.

This isn't running scared, this is Apple saying "We won't stand by while you try to use our work." I know that's not the Slashdot wisdom, but frankly Slashdot wisdom ain't exactly wise outside of certain limited facets of technology.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I'm just a complete idiot for saying that. That's why I posted AC.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Xest]

Agreed. This year there's been no iPhone 5 yet, the iPad 2 was a lacklustre update and iOS5 merely adds a few features Android has had forever lack the taskbar.

All we've seen from Apple this year is patent trolling, so is that it now? Apple's innovation spree has hit a brick wall and it's got to be all about the patent trolling now?

It's pathetic.

Come on Apple, you were better than this, you sparked a smartphone revolution, and now that revolution has run ahead of you you want to kill it?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[MightyMartian]

Apple didn't invent the tablet, and Apple has nicked plenty of other peoples' work.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[the_humeister]

And you don't think MS with their arguably monopoly-like practices in the '90s wasn't the same thing? A really effective way to increase profits is to drive away the competition by whatever means necessary.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[the_humeister]

I think it's funny that Apple has become what we most hated about IBM and MS way back when.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm not that excited by iOS5 I think iCloud is pretty innovative. They also clearly are merging elements of iOS with OSX. Like it or hate it but it's hard to say Apple hasn't been innovative this year.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the patent system and really don't like how much (but not all) of Android simply rips off others and then gives it away for free. However competition is good. I don't think the iPhone would have become nearly as good as it is were it not for Android chomping on its heels. I think others could be seriously competing with Apple in the tablet space but instead we've had some remarkable head scratchers like the releases of the HP tablet and the Rim tablet. Both clearly not ready for release and ultimately hurting the platform. I think though that both have some pretty innovative features. (Well Rim less so than HP and most of what I like in Rim seems ripped off from HP)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[jellomizer]

I bet the outcome would be different if Samsung were an European company.
Europe Hates America... Unless you need to compare it with Asia, Africa, South America. I think Europe may favor Antarctica.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[ElmoGonzo]

Apple can't compete on price. If there is a comparable product available at a significantly lower price it will overcome the advantage provided by the cachet of the Apple logo. Apple knows this so it does its best to keep those products off the market and if that won't work there's always license fees to augment the revenue stream. Whether or not those patents represent true, non-obvious, innovations is eventually settled in court. But regardless of the eventual outcome, it is Apple's best interest to keep the competitive products out of consumers' hands rather than allowing them to develop a following.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[gstoddart]

Its better to block out competitors by trolling patents than outcompete them isnt it. god bless american companies ..... not.

Well, for starters Samsung is a Korean company.

At this point, I have no idea who sued who first ... but Samsung made the components for Apple, and Apple is asserting that in the process, Samsung ripped off their technologies so they could make their own product. (A little googling managed to turn up this timeline -- apparently Apple sued first.)

Sadly, with patents being such a big factor in what products you can make without getting sued (for instance, Android phone makers paying Microsoft) ... I don't see how you can have anything but product competition being defined by lawyers and the courts.

Unless you toss the notion of patents altogether, do you have a proposal of how companies will make products with out constantly suing one another? Because quite frankly, as it stands, the patent system pretty much guarantees that your lawyers are more important than your engineers.

Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[phonewebcam]

I for one can't wait until their next invention, the one where you can load tunes to your device without needing wires. I hear they are to call it the iNternet.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[0xABADC0DA]

The entire purpose of patents is to block out competitors by securing to inventors exclusive rights over their inventions. Who would invest the money to invent if somebody else can just copy it and not have years of debt to pay off?

And for that matter software patents are good and they encourage innovation. Software is not math, it's a machine. Inventing a new sorting algorithm is no different from inventing a new physical sorting process except it's simulated by a computer. What's really the matter is just obvious patents, absurd patents like 'one click', and all the ones with clear prior art that are granted anyway.

Apple has done a huge amount of research and inventing in many areas and deserves to get advantage from it. The position of the defenders of Android is that blatant copying is okay, making them part of the anti-intellectual crowd that doesn't value ideas and creativity.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[VGPowerlord]

If you think "rounded corners on a tablet" is "ripping off Apple's ideas", I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

And Xerox copied... oh wait, they didn't copy anyone. Oh, the irony.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

If "Apple can't compete on price", why are iPads the same or lower price than "competing" tablets?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[gmon750]

Bullshit. Samsung from day one has done nothing but copy Apple's ecosystem. From icon design, peripherals, GUI interface (phones), etc.

Before Apple came into the field, everyone had 20+ years to come up with a phone / tablet design to shake the industry. Even with with the few players that gave up quickly, everyone else did NOTHING!

Now Apple comes in with their iPhone and iPad and SUDDENLY everyone's products now looks like an iPhone and iPad. That is no coincidence at all. When the iPhone was just an introduction back in 2007 before it shipped 6-months later, even Steve Jobs said they "And boy, did we patent it!". Why??? Because NO ONE ELSE had anything even remotely similar to it, and good for them!

What happened to designing your own stuff??? Even Samsung's CEO publicly admitted having to hold back their Galaxy Tab after the iPad2 introduction so that they could essentially copy its features.

And yet you fandroid-huggers continue to spin the story that Apple is the one at fault.

"Who cares if everyone is copying Apple's stuff. Apple should just keep innovating to stay ahead!" - Wrong! Apple can (and should) protect both its current IP and continue the same path of R&D that has made it hugely successful. This does not give copy-shops like Samsung an open-invitation to simply ride on the back of Apple's R&D.

Slashdot's Android fanboys are just delusional. It's no surprise that the Android OS itself is now in front of the gun barrel with patent and licensing violations, including Google's own internal messages that they knew Android's Java implementation was essentially stolen.

This is not bad for consumers. This is actually good for them because it will force Samsung to ACTUALLY COME UP WITH ITS OWN STUFF! Who knows? It might even be better!

Spin your way out of that.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[unity100]

again, are you saying that 'a rectangle' and 'rounded corners' is what defines 'look and feel' ? well my my.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

From wikipedia:

Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.

There is a citation to another page (a fool.com page) that I don't see actually gives this same price/share value, however it has been reported in many other places that Apple gave Xerox shares in exchange for the info/right to use the things they invented.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[narcc]

This isn't running scared, this is Apple saying "We won't stand by while you try to use our work." I know that's not the Slashdot wisdom, but frankly Slashdot wisdom ain't exactly wise outside of certain limited facets of technology.

What work would that be?

There's a reason for all those "rectangle" comments -- and it's not "Slashdot wisdom".

As for your "running scared" comment, you have to be incredibly short-sighted to come such a conclusion.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Raisey-raison]

The reason Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab is that a vary rare event has occurred - they actually have a competitor producing a product which is as good or better than Apple's product.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fans are akin to people who will pay top dollar to advertise a brand on their clothing. They think they're being 'cool' but don't realize that, by doing so, they are being used like the tool that they are.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit. I'm just a complete idiot regardless of me saying that. Sorry.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[the linux geek]

The Galaxy Tab runs a cell phone OS, just as the iPad does. It is not a "PC in slate format," as those haven't done particularly well in the market.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[The Dawn Of Time]

Yeah, I know - I'd have to be shortsighted to not go along with accepted Slashdot wisdom. They're totally running scared, not at all developing and releasing products. I'm such a fool for not just getting in line with the one true Google way.

And that's not a rectangle. For one, there's a third dimension. But don't let actual facts get in the way of a good anti-Apple rant when you can just dismiss me without even understanding a simple shape. Which isn't to defend the issue here, but I'm not the German court, friend. I'm just the one laughing at all the Slashdotters running to defend anything vaguely Android-related and bash anything positive for Apple.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[gmon750]

Android fans are akin to people (like AC's) who will get what they can and avoid actually paying for it due to some ego-inflated, false-sense of entitlement. They they think they are being 'cool' but don't realize that, by doing so, they are just being a tool.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[MightyYar]

I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

I don't know enough about the Apple/Samsung feud to have an opinion, but I do know that Apple paid Xerox for the ideas they used in the Lisa (and then later in the Mac).

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Vancorps]

Where did you get that bit about the CEO of Samsung? It makes no sense since the majority of functionality found in the Galaxy Tab is just Android which isn't developed by Samsung and kind of refutes your whole point.

You seem very one-sided and willfully ignorant especially with your interpretation of the whole Android debacle. Did you forget the part about the Sun CEO of the time encouraging Google to use Java for free?

All in all it matters little, Samsung is big enough to fight this battle and it will shed further light on ridiculous patents that Apple has become famous for using as a shield. I don't blame Apple for that either, they certainly aren't alone in that strategy. The iPad2 was just a logical extension of the existing iPad with features that everyone screamed it should have had to begin with especially since there was no technical reason it didn't but a marketing and sales driven reason but that's just good business on Apple's part since so many people eat it up.

Samsung has had a great track record of being innovative in the technology sector. They came out with a way better initial offering on the Samsung Apps approach knowing full well Sony was doing the same thing and their product was vastly superior with Sony still trying to play catch up and failing miserably as Sony is only good at the high end.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[x6060]

however it has been reported in many other places that Apple gave Xerox shares in exchange for the info/right to use the things they invented.

Such as rounded corners?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[jo_ham]

Why would that make them attack the Galaxy Tab then?

Oh, I see!

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, Apple's moved on from paying to use other people's ideas to just flat-out stealing them.

Woo-hoo?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[DriedClexler]

Bad example. A better comparison would be to Apple's "ripping off" of the "idea of an mp3 player". Um, yeah, if "copying" something so vague is "ripping off someone's ideas", then I guess you could have a case for Samsung leeching off Apple's *innovative* idea to round the corners on their tablet device.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

What did they steal? I provided citation that Apple paid Xerox, to refute a claim that Apple stole Xerox's ideas.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Genda]

Clearly you don't get what's happening. People here on Slashdot, for the most part don't care one way or the other about Apple. They have awesome product design, and you pay a huge premium for their artistic flare (typically 200%.) That's absolutely why artists love Apple.

The problem here is that Apple is fighting dirty, the IP they claim for the most part is thin at best and utterly bogus in the rest. Yes, they took the tablet that Microsoft and an army of PC makers simply couldn't figure out, and produced a perfect combination of software and hardware with a great form factor for a specific set of purposes, knowing instinctively what to accomplish (with today's technology) and what to avoid.

That makes them bright, clever, first on the scene with the right formula for success in this market. Kudos... It doesn't mean they could, should, or deserve to own the entire touch-pad market space. Just on principal its offensive to see someone wage a campaign of scape the bottom ethics. For another, look at the iPad 2, notice how much cooler it is that the iPad 1. That because even in their brilliance,Apple saw their competitors come up with cool ideas they missed. Having competition keeps you sharp, makes you honest, because silly BS won't fly in the face of real competition. The saddest part it that this is just morally and socially lazy. Trying to win like this is an admission that you haven't got the chops to compete on your intelligence or talent. That or it means you're such a bloated beast that you win by going around crushing your competition by manipulating legal and social options.

Apple should applaud the Galaxy, because it make the iPad better. Suck it up Apple and play like you have a pair.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Xerox invented the user interface there's this like Mother of all Demos I'd like you to see.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has a better screen.
Screen is what sells because in stores, people usually look how good the picture quality is.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[BlackSnake112]

I still wonder how much Apple paid to get some of those the patents. Take touch screens. I remember walking into a deli in 1996 and using a touch screen to order a sandwich and drink. Apple has us believe that they invented the touch screen with the iphone.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the current form of the tablet they did. And they have the patents to prove it.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[BlackSnake112]

There have been offsite/online backups for years. I remember people doing it over dial up. I set it up for a few business back then. Storing your stuff on some offsite server somewhere is not new.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[narcc]

And that's not a rectangle. For one, there's a third dimension. But don't let actual facts get in the way of a good anti-Apple rant when you can just dismiss me without even understanding a simple shape.

Okay, it's pretty clear here that you're just trolling. I might have guessed from your user id.

In the unlikely event you're actually serious, I should point out that it's obvious to all but the unconscious that this 'look and feel' suit is total nonsense. Before you go on about disagreeing with the German counts, I should probably remind (inform?) you that this is merely a preliminary injunction.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[MightyYar]

The Xerox comparison wasn't mine, it was yours. I presumed you were talking about Apple's use of Xerox's GUI inventions in their computers, but perhaps you were just referencing the fact that they make copiers.

I have too little information on the Apple/Samsung case to even comment.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[PCM2]

In the current form of the tablet they did. And they have the patents to prove it.

This lawsuit doesn't seem to be about patents, if the linked documents are correct. It appears to be about "community design" rights, which is a subcategory of trademarks in the EU. Apple is literally suing because the Galaxy Tab looks like an iPad. Imagine if another company had the same rights over something like, I dunno... T-shirts.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

True, but Average Joe consumer was not setting up and/or using offsite/online backups. If "any idiot" can do it without much fuss then it's innovative in that they made it digestible to the proletariat.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[MrDoh!]

And with this under their belts, I'm sure they'll be going after the phones next too.
Think differently indeed.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.

No, patents exists to make the knowledge available for others to use. The limited monopoly is just the bait to get companies patent stuff instead of keeping it secret.
At least that is the way it was supposed to work.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

Because apple buys all the manufacturing capacity. I work at a company that has close ties to the phone industry and they're having a really hard time getting components. One of the techniques Apple supposedly (hearsay, no citation) uses is to offer a manufacturer a bunch of money to help them re-tool or build a new plant and in exchange Apple gets exclusive rights to the output of the plant for some amount of time.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the beginning there was void* and then Jobs said let there be data, a connector and a rectangle with rounded corners and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large ...

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people really okay with companies just blatantly ripping off other companies?

I could care less at this point. We're well passed design threshold singularity, aren't we? I mean, how many different ways can you really make a paper sized touchscreen tablet? The iPad reminds me of something I saw on Star Trek circa early 90's, which I'm sure was a ripoff of some other Sci-fi before that.

With an id# that low, I have to wonder if you've really been paying attention to technology, and where ideas come from; i.e. previous Sci-Fi. Start reading up and watching!

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[peted56]

And I defy anyone to confuse any of these devices, they are quite obviously different. I am just so glad apple does not make cars, sorry but can't have round wheels, you want glass windows, no way, seats no sorry they have to be milk crates........

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. They should be punished for cloning that horrible piece of shit that is the iPad and contributing to the tablet fad. ^^

How will I recognize who is a douche with a high likeliness of being gay, if not from the Apple logo? ^^

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: PROTIP about your "ripping off" delusion: Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture (TEDTalks)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

A device like ipad with the exception that it's not locked to a single marketplace (like apple's).

In my book, that's not a ripoff, but innovation, and IP-asshattery is keeping that innovation away from consumers.

(and if you say "jailbreak" I counter with "apps": the number of latter which require former is greatly lower that that of those which are available for another similar device which doesn't)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck. Besides, Frankly, when ibm/microsoft/compaq did that (more or less accidentally) to umpteen bazillion closed systems some quarter a century ago, THAT WAS A GOOD THING.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people really okay with companies just blatantly ripping off other companies? I thought Slashdot trashed Microsoft for years over that.

Yes, Slashdot trashed Microsoft for that. I don't remember anyone ever saying that Microsoft should be sued for it.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[scot4875]

Sony should latch onto this.

They could start suing everyone who produced a video screen in a 16:9 ratio with a thin black bezel and a stand of some sort.

--Jeremy

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

Are you claiming there's something wrong with that? Would it be better if Google were doing the same thing for Android phone manufacturers?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[StripedCow]

UI-patents are just silly, because imagine somebody patented the "play" button on hifi equipment...

It nowadays is not necessary anymore to physically open up a product to see if there's a patent being infringed upon, you can just see it from the outside, which is ridiculous.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calculators are rectangles with rounded corners and screens. They have been like that for decades.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[kirkb]

Samsung CEO's reaction to the iPad 2 ... http://www.newsy.com/videos/samsung-ceo-admits-galaxy-tab-is-inadequate/

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except product better than Apple's are pretty much omnipresent (since they cripple pretty much everything they put out).

The difference here is that they CAN do something. If they could do the same with PC, or Mp3 players, or other phones, they would for sure.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Dog-Cow]

You make it sound like Apple is doing something dirty.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[dzfoo]

And it exchange of releasing it to the public, the inventor gets to charge a license fee.

So we both agree, if Samsung is copying Apple's inventions, they should pay them for a license, no?

The first step is an injunction until the courts can decide. So what's the problem here?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[shutdown -p now]

Linux is a cell phone OS?

Android is mostly UI, anyway. And Android 3 is not a "cell phone UI".

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mummy, Daddy (sob sob) samsung is copying the shape i used for my ipad can you ban all of their imports so i don't have competition any more.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Cederic]

will get what they can and avoid actually paying for it

Yeah, but that's because Apple emptied the stock from their stores before the riots, so everyone had to loot Android devices instead.

That aside, you're spouting nonsense - I still haven't found an Android tablet that comes for free. Even Pierre Cardin is charging for their under-spec old OS fake-leather-cased one, and nobody actually _wants_ that.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[NeoMorphy]

I think the appeal of Android is more about the freedom to install what you want.

If you thought it was because it was cheaper, then I am thinking someone was proven correct.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Vancorps]

Thanks, that was exactly the piece I was hoping the parent would quote since it paints a very different picture with the CEO of Samsung saying the Galaxy 10.1 wasn't as good as the iPad 2 which invalidates their whole point about copying. Of course then Android 3.1 was released and it now stacks up very well against the iPad 2. I think Acer went for a better approach though going as far as including a full size usb port at the cost of making the device a little thicker. Combined with an SD card slot and its better than the Galaxy in terms of features while being worse in terms of battery life.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Daniel Phillips]

Actually, Apple was like that right from the beginning but their spin has been sufficient to conceal it until recently. Learned my lesson in 1984 (the real one).

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Dr Max]

Android copied apple as much as apple copied Microsoft. Also have you not noticed how ios has changed and taken on more and more of androids features. Samsung was the first to put dual cameras on a tablet does that mean they can stop the import (not that apple has any to send anyone) of the ipad2. If you can’t see an issue with apple taking/keeping their market share by force rather by innovation then you should leave this site and go back to mac rummurs. Unless you are a share holder (and even then its debatable in the long run) these aggressive legal moves are not in your interst.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Daniel Phillips]

Apple can't compete on price.

To be precise, Apple can't afford to let their fat margins fall or so will their stock price. Corollary: the higher AAPL goes, the more vicious it gets.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[the linux geek]

Mac OS X is a cell phone OS?

iOS is closer to desktop OS X than Android is to desktop Linux. There is no virtual-machine craziness going on in iOS - it runs standard Mach-O binaries.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

I thought it was extremely common event. The rare event is that for once people are able to see past their religion, becoming enlightened.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You said that "Galaxy Tab runs a cell phone OS". This is obviously not true. I never said that iPad runs a "cell phone OS" (though, comparing iOS on iPhone with iOS on iPad, and then Android 2.x on phones with Honeycomb on tablets, it is clear that UI-wise Honeycomb is much more different - if UI is what you referred to).

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

they are crying foul for others of just as such vague things btw.

DISCLAIMER: Imho, Apple is the most evil company out there, and i will be celebrating the day they go bankrupt or otherwise close doors. Microsoft is a saint compared to Apple.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[skjolber]

It was clear to anyone in the mobile industry that someone would come up with a touch screen spanning the whole mobile phone in the years before the iPhone was introduced, in fact there were other attempts. The main reason Apple was the first to be successful, was the willingness of its customers to pay top dollars for its products, allowing for a product with an expensive touchscreen before others. The technical aspects were in no respects a revolution, see for example SonyEricsson (matrix menu system) and Nokia devices (GPS, 5MP camera, video recorder) from the time. No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the consumer.

The other success factor, with the apple app store, or rather horizontal control over app creation and distribution, was a natural consequence of the dysfunctional approach of assigning distribution right to mobile phone operators (where were all the mobile applications for 2G? They were sitting on developer's machines without the correct signatures - mobile phone operators were incompetent). No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the operators.

Of course Apple have been good, in fact they have been great, but (almost) first does mean they can or should bully others from making products with the same specifications, order of icons included, that is simply without merit. BTW: I have been programming JME (+Blackberry), Symbian, iOS and Android apps in order of appearance from 2003.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

forget the stand and aspect ratio. Just sue anything which has a screen/rectangular information output of sorts (live or otherwise, updateable or not) with a thin single color bezel.

Unfortunately there is no religion around Sony, so it will fail unlike for Apple that works.

(yes, even newspapers fall to that category)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

Every single tablet before iPad had the same general look and feel :)

Have fun on Sunday mass @ Apple Store :)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Dr Max]

What kind of debt do you think apple has over the rectangle with rounded corners invention. Now i know apple is populated by designers and designers aren't always the sharpest tool in the shed but that would of taken 1 guy 1 week tops; and is just as absurd as a pattent for a one click sale button.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[The13thSin]

Well, for starters Samsung is a Korean company.

I think GP meant Apple... the US company.

At this point, I have no idea who sued who first ... but Samsung made the components for Apple, and Apple is asserting that in the process, Samsung ripped off their technologies so they could make their own product. (A little googling managed to turn up this [ibtimes.com] timeline -- apparently Apple sued first.)

Well that's the point isn't it? All these companies (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc) own such a ridiculous amount of patents, according to the MAD principle they've stayed off each other's backs for years... until recently when Apple (& Microsoft) started suing everyone. If every patent they were granted was in fact valid, they could completely block each other from ever bringing out new products and completely destroy each other.

Sadly, with patents being such a big factor in what products you can make without getting sued (for instance, Android phone makers paying Microsoft) ... I don't see how you can have anything but product competition being defined by lawyers and the courts.

Indeed, it seems this system is starting to show everyone why it doesn't work.

Unless you toss the notion of patents altogether, do you have a proposal of how companies will make products with out constantly suing one another? Because quite frankly, as it stands, the patent system pretty much guarantees that your lawyers are more important than your engineers.

Well the cold-war stand-off that seemed to happen (most of the time) in the past decade or two seemed to work "somewhat", a company like HTC was able to rise to power only at the merits of others not suing them over patents until they got a couple themselves (though not enough apparently in some cases).

Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.

With other words: Patents (in their current form) are anti-competitive and anti-innovative... and it seems that deep misunderstanding by many judges worldwide of the technical sector and how it works, doesn't help much either.

And to comment on the form factor: There were rounded square tablets before the iPad, there were rounded square phones before the iPhone (LG Prada?)... maybe the Galaxy S 1 is a bit more like the iPhone than the iPhone is like the Prada... but it's all definitely a blurred line. I've heard non-techie's say the Galaxy S is like the iPhone, but only in the sense a McDonald's burger is like a Burger King burger... never were they unable to tell which is which.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but Average Joe consumer was not setting up and/or using offsite/online backups. If "any idiot" can do it without much fuss then it's innovative in that they made it digestible to the proletariat.

Posting AC to preserve mods...

Check out Carbonite - been around since 2005. Download the program, install, enter your user name and password. That's it - background, automated, continuous backups of your data to remote servers. And accessing that data means opening your file explorer and browsing the archive - just like it was a local drive. It really is something just about an idiot (and definitely morons and imbeciles) can do.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

This http://www.saares.net/verkkokauppa/files/nokia-e7-00.jpg doesn't look like an iPhone :)

Oh crap! Someone thought of something like iPhone before it came out:
http://alypuhelin.nettisivu.org/files/2011/05/nokia.jpg

SUE SUE SUE SUE!
http://www.brighthand.com/assets/4911.jpg
It resembles an iPhone!
How could they allow such devices as this to exist: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/PalmTX.jpg without a myriad of lawsuits!

So apple took a PDA, wanted 24/7 connectivity, added GPRS to it and noticed it could also be used for calling. (Remember, original iPhones were VERY lacking in phone related features and finishing/polishing)

Best smartphone i know was pretty much a prototype which slipped into mass production:
http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-n900.JPG

Before that there was N810 which actually predates iPhone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N800

Or for some really early work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet

Clearly Nokia 770 was too early on the market, before technology properly supported what they wanted to do.

In any case, Apple simply took Mac OS X, stripped it down, took something already built, and added a few hippies to dev team (artists), seriously nothing else.

Before you start your fandroid bashing, i've actually never used android before, getting my first android pad from customs tomorrow to see how it is, and i actually am receiving tomorrow my new phone: Nokia E7-00. Sure some iPhone could have been cheaper to buy, but i want something i can actually do whatever i want with AND make phone calls, and i want to make damn sure it will not fail on me for the next couple years :)

Seriously, you need to take a few weeks off from the sunday mass @ your local apple store.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[shellbeach]

What are you talking about? Samsung ripped off the look and feel of the iPad. It's Samsung that can't compete.

Are people really okay with companies just blatantly ripping off other companies? I thought Slashdot trashed Microsoft for years over that.

Oh, come on! If Samsung ripped off the look and feel of the iPad, then the iPad ripped off the look and feel of tablet PCs. Take a look a this picture of an HP tablet PC from 2006, and tell me how the iPad didn't copy the rounded rectangle shape you see there! Seriously, I know worshiping Steve Jobs makes you blind, but surely nobody could be that shortsighted ...

Other than the basic shape, let's see ... The iPad has a single central button, that could be considered unique; does the Samsung have that? Nope. And the two OSes are completely different (you couldn't possibly compare iOS to Honeycomb, surely??)

Incidentally, if MS was trashed for ripping off Mac OS's look'n'feel back in the day (and I don't remember this ever happening except from Apple fanbois, so plus ca change ...) then Apple should also have been trashed for ripping the original GUI look'n'feel from Xerox ...

Apple has done some great and innovative things, no question. But they were neither the originators of the GUI concept nor the tablet concept, and to claim otherwise does them no credit. Right now they're in serious danger of being left behind in the innovation stakes. Already iOS is copying features from Android, and looking more as if it's trying to play catchup than leading the field as it used to. It's about time Apple stopped suing and started doing again.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[shellbeach]

If "Apple can't compete on price", why are iPads the same or lower price than "competing" tablets?

Like the Asus Transformer, you mean, which retails $100 less than the iPad 2??

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

Well, i paid 75$ for my android pad inc. shipping from singapore to Finland :) Brand new, 7", WIFI B/G/N, etc. all of the funky stuff except slower cpu, less memory, no 3g or gps built-in. You can add both via USB :)
Tho, i don't need to, my phone has GPS and WIFI Tethering :) (Nokia E7-00 so you can actually get that app for it from official sources, and in Finland no one is going to try stop you from doing that)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.

Albeit a kernel of great scalability and flexibility.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

... blasting along the alkalai flats in a jet-powered, monkey-navigated...

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[exomondo]

icon design

The only thing they specified that samsung also did is the color, which is a logical decision that if people are using one device it will be a lot easier to use another device if the icon for the common function is similar. There's no point differentiating just for the sake of it when there is a clear advantage to using what many people are used to. The shape of the icon is different and the image is something neither company designed.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why??? Because NO ONE ELSE had anything even remotely similar to it, and good for them!

Oh fuck off you apple troll. There is almost nothing in the iphone that hadn't been done before, nothing revolutionary at all.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Android fans are akin to people (like AC's) who will get what they can and avoid actually paying for it due to some ego-inflated, false-sense of entitlement. They they think they are being 'cool' but don't realize that, by doing so, they are just being a tool.

Fixed that for you.

oh right because apple never 'stole' IP from other companies with their own sense of entitlement to inventions they did not create. oh that's right, actually THEY DID! your precious apple is just as guilty as you make everyone else out to be...you LOSE!

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[NoSleepDemon]

And it's that third dimension that sets Apple apart from the rest of the crowd. While competitors are still struggling with the concept of four edges at ninety degrees to each other (that's pi/2 radians to all you archaic android lovers who can't grasp the concept of innovation over mathematical simplicity), Apple has truly set the bar high. The possibility of viewing the device from any angle is truly a revolution in communication, gaming, and running more than one application at the same time. The fact that the edges of the tablet are, in fact, curved where they meet each other is a subtlety lost to all who subscribe to that so called slashdot wisdom, and its straight edged way.

If I were in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, my cuboid overlords, for one, would welcome me.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[That Guy From Mrktng]

Sorry that's not innovation that is massification, worthy goal but not the same thing.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[exomondo]

Mac OS X is a cell phone OS?

What is a 'cell phone OS'?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[exomondo]

Now i know apple is populated by designers and designers aren't always the sharpest tool in the shed

Actually they're not allowed to have sharp tools in the shed so they came up with the invention 'the rounded rectangle'.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Cyberllama]

Apple has a patent on rectangles now, apparently. That's basically the only two things these devices share in common. Their UI's are nothing alike.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Cyberllama]

Mod me down, Android fans. That doesn't make your uncritical love of Google's ecosystem any less retarded.

Irony . . . overwhelming. Can't . . . go on. Tell my wife I love Android . . .

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Cyberllama]

Before Apple came into the field, everyone had 20+ years to come up with a phone / tablet design to shake the industry. Even with with the few players that gave up quickly, everyone else did NOTHING!

And Apple did nothing too. Why do you suppose that was? Oh wait, we know why--Steve Jobs himself told us the technology just wasn't ready yet. So perhaps the proliferation of smartphones post iPhone has less to do with everyone copying Apple and more to do with the fact that their time had simply come--as evidenced by the iPhone and all the rest. The fact that the iPhone and LG Prada phone look almost identical seems to be solid evidence of this theory. Smartphones were just headed in that direction, regardless of whole stole the crown.

Not that Apple didn't innovate. They certainly did. Their use of multiple sensors (ambient light, accelerometer, and later Gyroscope) turned out to be extremely influential and useful. And certainly they were among the first to use capacitive touch screens--though its not quite clear to me if that technology was going to supplant resistive either way or not.

Now Apple comes in with their iPhone and iPad and SUDDENLY everyone's products now looks like an iPhone and iPad. That is no coincidence at all.

Well first of all, plenty look and feel quite different. There are quite a few different shapes and sizes represented in the non-Apple camp.

Again, the Prada Phone actually proves you wrong. Other phones coming down the pipes already looked like the iPhone. That was the way we were headed. And Android phones were getting progressively bigger and bigger when the iPad was announced. It was inevitable that someone would have said "I do believe I'd like a 10 inch version of this for when I'm in the bathroom". Hell, look at the chumby. It was coming one way or the other.

Slashdot's Android fanboys are just delusional.

Irony!

It's no surprise that the Android OS itself is now in front of the gun barrel with patent and licensing violations, including Google's own internal messages that they knew Android's Java implementation was essentially stolen.

To be fair, they were talking about licensing in those emails. Not the patents for Java, but Java itself. That is, using Sun's own VM. They opted to do their own implementation instead (Dalvik). Their lawyers felt that if they did their own VM they'd be fine, legally-speaking. The lawsuit is over the patents, which is not quite the same issue, but Oracle's lawyers are happy to confuse it. We'll all just have to wait and see how that whole debacle pans out.

This is not bad for consumers. This is actually good for them because it will force Samsung to ACTUALLY COME UP WITH ITS OWN STUFF! Who knows? It might even be better!

Bro, it's a rectangle. The whole basis here is that it "looks" like an iPad. That's all. Are you telling me Apple invented the rectangle? I mean, common. It looks like every other tablet ever. Don't be silly.

Bottom line: Apple violates just as many patents as everybody else. You literally cannot build *anything* without violating someone's patent. Most companies know this, and so they aren't suing. They hold on to their patents in a defensive stance because they know that suing just means getting sued. Trust me, you do not want to live in the world where everybody is being held to the same standards Apple wants to hold Samsung to.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[jrumney]

What's unusual is that the Galaxy Tab looks and acts far less like an iPad than the Galaxy S does an iPhone. It's weird that they're gunning so hard after the tablet.

Not really, as Samsung has a predecessor to the Galaxy S from 2006 which also looks the same as the iPhone (apart from the square button) which wasn't publically unveiled yet. They don't however have a predecessor to the Galaxy tablet, so Apple hopes to con a jury into thinking that it was Samsung doing the copying.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Nex]

Funny, it's available for sale in the US. Goodo on the American marketplace. Nex

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to designing your own stuff???

How about you tell that to those hypocrites Apple who 'stole' the design of their new AppleTV from Western Digital? Oh but you love apple so much that you would never believe they could do such a thing would you.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Tim the Gecko]

Because apple buys all the manufacturing capacity. I work at a company that has close ties to the phone industry and they're having a really hard time getting components. One of the techniques Apple supposedly (hearsay, no citation) uses is to offer a manufacturer a bunch of money to help them re-tool or build a new plant and in exchange Apple gets exclusive rights to the output of the plant for some amount of time.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/07/06/1337204/How-Apple-Came-To-Control-the-Component-Market

It's not necessarily a bad thing, and other companies could make similar deals if they wanted to.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I was in Kyoto last week at a conference. Almost all the tables i saw where Androids, not apples. Sure its not real data, but apple clearly thinks its a real threat.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO the reason Apple is going after Samsung is because their primary supplier of components is copying their designs. You can't blame them from keeping their primary component supplier from competing with them. After all, in its relationship with Apple, Samsung has prior knowledge of what will be the next iDevice design. Copying designs might be tolerated or even a long term tradition in the Asian market, it doesn't mean that we should tolerate them in ours.

Suppose Samsung outcompetes the iPhone and Apple goes out of business. Will Samsung provide us with the next wave of innovative devices? I don't think so. We'd just get an ever ending slurry of crappy devices stuffed down our throats until people got tired of them and ditch the solution alltogether. Not exactly my idea of "Advances in technology".

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[ReeceTarbert]

If "Apple can't compete on price", why are iPads the same or lower price than "competing" tablets?

Not entirely true. Here's a sample of current european prices for the most popular tablets:

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10", WiFi + 3G, 16 GB: 549.00 Eur
iPad 2, Wi-Fi + 3G, 16 GB: 599.00

Motorola Xoom, WiFi only, 32 GB: 465.00 Eur
Asus Eee Pad Transformer, WiFi only, 32 GB: 499.00 Eur
HP TouchPad, WiFi Only, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur
iPad 2, WiFi only, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur

Motorola Xoom, WFi + 3G, 32 GB: 579.00 Eur
iPad 2, Wi-Fi + 3G, 32 GB: 699.00 Eur

Okay, the difference is not that big and, for some people, there are still plenty of reasons to prefer Apple's offerings, but I would not say that price is one of them.

RT.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[blackest_k]

Still got a htc universal and it was good at a few things , java in particular wasn't one of them, The 640x480 screen the auto rotation, mine doesn't have built in gps although some did. There have been a couple of versions of linux running on it to a greater or lesser extent the slide to unlock you see on most android phones is one of them.

my old toshiba E740 is still fairly respectable as a pda built in bluetooth and usb (wifi was optional but i have a cf wifi card). the optional dock a clip on expansion port brings a vga port to the base of the pda and a standard usb port 320 by 240 screen running the old 2003 version of windows mobile , no camera off course although if the linux port had been completed you could probably run a standard web cam.

The hardware on these devices was pretty good even if the microsoft operating systems did leave a lot to be desired.

Specifications have improved faster wifi higher performing processors and more ram and better operating systems. Even my old E740 is not that far removed from the ipad or itouch or iphone. If drivers were written you could probably use a 3g modem stick with the E740 and use it for voice and maybe video calls.

It is all evolutionary not revolutionary, If toshiba wanted to upgrade the E740 to a larger screen more ram faster cpu and a decent operating system you'd probably finish up with something like the galaxy tab or the ipad.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,361530,00.asp checkout this review from 2002

Tablets are not new and build upon the work done by other companies, Apple shouldn't be able to use the legal system to delay competitors devices. This court injunction is not justified.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Bro, it's a rectangle. The whole basis here is that it "looks" like an iPad. That's all. Are you telling me Apple invented the rectangle?

In context of technology.

Yes. The clean use of minimalist rectangles was an apple invention. Every tech gadget on earth I know of gives into this bizarre temptation to load every edge and non-screen space of the device with buttons, rocker switches, DPads, etc. everywhere.

Apple said, "NO. No more."

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[justforgetme]

Is the 10" Galaxy tab that good a machine? I thought that android tablets were (allegedly) years behind the iDap

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

Only to the extent that it's anti-competitive. Apple clearly has the best tablet product on the market right now based on how well the thing is selling. It's one thing to be better than everyone else, it's a totally different thing to control the market in such a way that your competitors can't.. well.. compete.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

It may not be a technical innovation, but it is a business/product innovation. In the same way that the portable music device or digital music store was not particularly new, but tying them together and making it relatively idiot proof made Apple a wild success.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[sglewis100]

I was in Kyoto last week at a conference. Almost all the tables i saw where Androids, not apples. Sure its not real data, but apple clearly thinks its a real threat.

How was the Android Developers conference, by the way?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[sglewis100]

Only to the extent that it's anti-competitive. Apple clearly has the best tablet product on the market right now based on how well the thing is selling. It's one thing to be better than everyone else, it's a totally different thing to control the market in such a way that your competitors can't.. well.. compete.

It's a hard case to make - you might say controlling so much exclusivity on manufacturing is anti-competitive, but doesn't it appear just as likely that it's done because there isn't enough capacity? Every time a new iPhone or iPad has come out, it takes MONTHS for demand to catch up with supply. People sleep out overnight to get a crack at buying one, web orders take weeks to fulfill, non-Apple stores like BestBuy, etc, barely get ANY inventory. Perhaps they want to much of the capacity, and agree to refurbish manufacturing plants, is because they hope they can make enough to sell one to everyone who wants one?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

Of course Apple is trying to meet market demand to maximize profits, to suggest otherwise I think would be silly.. I'm saying the method through which they are attempting to meet the market demands is anti-competitive. Apple is getting exclusivity deals with the manufacturers of the components, and yet their devices are still cheaper and with higher profit margins. That tells me rather than Apple competing fairly by paying a price premium for the additional/exclusive capacity they are potentially using their market position in an anti-competitive way. If anyone wants to compete with Apple then it is the competitor that is required to pay the price premium because of Apple's anti-competitive market influence. In a free market everyone who meets a certain minimum capacity requirement (economies of scale obviously come into play) should be paying the same prices for components. Exclusivity deals are a yellow flag of monopoly/anti-competitive practices. It's one of the (many) things that got MSFT in big trouble back in the day.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[sglewis100]

I couldn't agree less. Why would they pay a premium to manufacturers who are clamoring for their business? One can go out and negotiate with fifteen different main stream Android manufacturers and a hundred Chinese knock off manufacturers, plus HP for TouchPad and RIM for the PlayBook, or in one fell swoop, have 5 times the amount of volume and just one contact, all in exchange for a discount. It's the same reason hotels are happy to discount rates for large conference bookings.

Here's a company that's willing to fund your expansion by up front cash payments for future services rendered, rather than make you acquire loans . They are willing to buy up all your components - as many as you can make. All they want, is guaranteed access to those components, and great pricing. Apparently Apple is Samsung's single biggest customer. If Apple can't get enough displays fast enough, and wants to give a few billion to Sharp and LG (same article) to help them build factories quicker... well yeah, I bet they do expect to get those panels, not HTC.

Which part of anti-trust law do you assert they've broken?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

You had me right up until there's an exclusivity clause in the contract.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[sglewis100]

Exclusivity isn't evil. It can be used for evil, but it's not evil. But I'm glad I almost swayed you LOL - that's rare enough here. I tell you what... when I need 10 million widgets, and you can only make 2 million widgets a year, and I offer you a fair price for them, and give you $4 billion up front to build new widget factories, we'll see if you mind giving me 100% crack at the yield until I get my 10 million widgets. :)

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[bberens]

I'm willing to sell you this license of Windows for $1, that you can easily re-sell for $100. The only catch is that you're not allowed to sell anything but Windows. The exclusivity clause only matters if you're in a monopoly position, which in the case of tablets I would suggest Apple holds that position.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[sglewis100]

So build your own factory next time. We're not talking about a license. We're talking about nobody can meet my demand, and I'll build you a factory if you agree to meet my demand. And later, when my four billion dollar investment is paid back, enjoy your nice factory! The difference is, with Windows, there was no demand issue. Microsoft didn't NEED a computer vendor to help them MAKE licenses. They were just dangling discounts for exclusivity. Which by the end isn't by itself, illegal. Same thing happens in restaurants. Can I have a Coke? Ever hear "is Pepsi ok"? The issue with Microsoft was that they were saying "sell anything you want, but I want that license fee on every computer, even if it is not a Windows machine."

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Phoghat]

In other words: Jobs, Go fuck yourself !

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

It was SMBE. A biology conference, which are typically heavily Mac biased.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

But it's not. There's all of these other tablets (Galaxy Tab, etc.) coming out. The fact that nobody (relatively) wants to BUY the other tablets doesn't mean that there aren't alternatives out there.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[That Guy From Mrktng]

Sure the UI of the iPod was innovative and thats probably why I bought and still use mine, But the success (for Apple) is related to the overpriced it is, When the bigger pendrive was around 1Gb I did lot's of money renting my iPod so people in the college could move their big ass desktop publishing works, the iPod paid itself almost twice.

If we are talking about: a business/product innovation we are talking about a Marketing Innovation and nobody sane would argue that Apple have mediocre marketing, I may dislike Apple as a company as it turned out to be after the iPhone and now starting to be a litigiation corp, but I'll never slash their products, w/out the OCD nature of late Apple I would probably be swimming in iPads and iPhones right now, but thats not the case.

Design patents

[tepples]

From the article:

Note that this preliminary injunction is all about a design-related intellectual property right, not about hardware or software patents.

This might be confusing to readers in the United States, where exclusive rights in industrial design are treated as patents.

Tagged as ohnoitsflorian

Re:Design patents

[David Gerard]

Anything from Florian should be regarded as primarily ad-banner trolling.

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

And ignoring Florian is somehow making the injunction in Europe go away? People, grow up, please.

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA was covered by less-biased news outlets all over the world. It would've been announced by at least ten other submitters. It seems the editors are intentionally driving this website into the ground by their continual dalliance with Florian.

Re:Design patents

[SuperKendall]

Newsflash - those of us outside your bitchy small clique of people who have noticed that he is the poster, don't care at all.

I mean why would we even follow the link anyway? This is Slashdot!

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh what a surprise, the Apple brigade leader has arrived to thwart outcry against his Microsoft-employed opportune ally.

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as "injunction in Europe". If what is in the blog post is correct, there is an injunction in Germany, which is valid there. It isn't "enforceable" anywhere else, except in Germany, and since this looks like a lower court, it may be overturned quite fast. If the Apple wants to block the tablet elsewhere in Europe, it will have to sue separately, according to the law of each country.

So, grow up please.

Re:Design patents

[dzfoo]

Actually, read the sources: the injunction, or whatever it is called in Europe, is to stop selling the devices in all of the European Union countries, except Neatherlands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/8691707/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-10.1-blocked-in-Europe.html

So apparently, there is such a thing as "injunction in Europe." It may be called differently thoug, but the effect is the same.

        dZ.

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

From your article, idiot:

It is possible to apply for a pan-European injunction in any country which, if upheld, covers all of the EU.

Now, compare this with what I said ;)

Fanbois, can't read, can't think, can't even troll properly.

Re:Design patents

[exomondo]

FM;DR nuff said.

Re:Design patents

[dzfoo]

Thanks for turning this into a personal attack, that shows brilliant debating skills.

As per your own comment, a "pan-European injunction" covers all of the EU, and does not require individual litigation on each country--except in the Neatherlands, where the laws are different. This is according to the article.

This is different than what you said. You claimed that the court ruling only applied to Germany, and that Apple would have to "sue separately, according to the law of each country."

          -dZ.

Re:Design patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Did an IP lawyer speak?

Why can't Samsung do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great news for Apple fans I guess, but I have to wonder why can't Samsung block Apple's sale? Can't they just think of something and sue Apple for it?

Re:Why can't Samsung do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they just think of something and sue Apple for it?

You see there are these things called laws and Samsung broke them.

Re:Why can't Samsung do the same?

[dgatwood]

I'd be a lot more broken up about it except that Han shot first. AFAIK, Apple only started filing suits to block Samsung's hardware sales after Samsung began ITC proceedings to block Apple's hardware sales in the U.S. Even in the best case, trying to block import of a major company's devices via the ITC is a case of mutually assured destruction, and in the worst case, it's throwing the hand grenade soon enough for the enemy to throw it back.

Re:Why can't Samsung do the same?

[XxtraLarGe]

I'd be a lot more broken up about it except that Han shot first. AFAIK, Apple only started filing suits to block Samsung's hardware sales after Samsung began ITC proceedings to block Apple's hardware sales in the U.S. Even in the best case, trying to block import of a major company's devices via the ITC is a case of mutually assured destruction, and in the worst case, it's throwing the hand grenade soon enough for the enemy to throw it back.

Slashdotters have short memories, thanks for reminding us. I don't like it on the part of either company, but it sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black to whine about one doing it but not the other one.

Re:Why can't Samsung do the same?

[Dr Max]

How bout dual cameras on a tablet. This isn't good news for apple fans; if apple wins with lawyers they arn't going to put the profit into R&D they will put into improving the leagal department.

rather generic

[SkunkPussy]

looking at the design IP, its just a flat thin shape with curved edges and corners.

it seems pretty generic...

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea looks like any old generic iPad.

Re:rather generic

[SilverHatHacker]

Does this cover anything with that shape, or just tablets? Because I have a slice of bread I think they might be interested in...

Re:rather generic

[GNUman]

Yeah, the description in the document under code 54 (i.e. Indication of the product) it literally just says "Handheld Computer".

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Which looks like any flat screen touch monitor

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah which looks like any generic pad. Writting pad, Drawing pad, cleaning pad. They are all flat thin shapes, some with curved corners and other with pointed corners.

Just how many shapes are practical for a touch screen devise with not keyboard.

Wake up people!

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean like any old generic Star Trek: TNG PADD right?

that stuff that was shown globally back in 1987...

Re:rather generic

[GNUman]

oops... I guess that makes sense, given that they are registering the "design", not the "invention", of a handheld computer.

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Star Trek: TNG PADD that looks nothing like an iPad.

Re:rather generic

[wintercolby]

From what I could tell of the design, it was rounded at the bottom and squared at the top. The iPad is tapered to rounded edges, the design isn't. The Galaxy 10.1 has the rounding in the middle, and not the top. The front of the Samsung resembles many flat screen TV's, only smaller. What are they suing over again? Having looked at both products, both seem to be significantly different from the design.

Re:rather generic

[compro01]

Looks pretty similar to me. Just extend the screen a little and thicken the border some.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:DS9_arboretum_plan.jpg

Granted, it's from DS9 rather than TNG, but that's still 1994.

Re:rather generic

[tsa]

Like a playing card, you mean?

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks pretty similar to me.

That's only because you're blind and stupid. Any intelligent person can see that looks nothing like an iPad.

Re:rather generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mistake simplicity for "easy". The guiding principle of good design is "simplify, simplify, simplify", continually removing anything unnecessary until only the essential remains. It may seem a generic design but it took Apple to come up with it after a decade of misses by rest of the industry.

Dont feed the troll

[Local ID10T]

Stop quoting Florian Mueller as news.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Could you elaborate why florian mueller is so evil? I don't get it.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

because he doesnt have a clue maybe?
pretty much everything ive seen him write has turned out wrong.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean besides the baby eating?

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Nick Ives]

He has a history of saying controversial things to drive traffic to his weblog. He had a long running feud with PJ and the Groklaw community in general where his analysis into the various SCO cases was consistently shown to be total crap.

It's also very doubtful that he has any legal qualifications whatsoever. He's just an attention whore trying to scrape a living on Adsense revenue. He deserves pity, but not attention.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

His arguments appear to be logical -- at least, posters here seem not to be contesting the arguments but instead castigating the person. So we'll see if he's right this time. Maybe he learned something from pissing you people off, or is it your opinion that no one learns anything after age, oh, 28?

We get plenty of stories front-paged on /. that are astroturfed, self-promoting, and/or nearly total spin. (And that's not even including the astroturfed comments -- some of our more, ah, highly-ideological commenters don't seem to have any other work to do daily, and they can't all be living with their parents.) Why single out Mueller? (I'm asking that in general, I know you were answering someone's Mueller-specific question.)

Re:Dont feed the troll

[chartreuse]

[Reposting because I wasn't logged-in. I stand behind these words, sorry for any confusion.]

His arguments appear to be logical -- at least, posters here seem not to be contesting the arguments but instead castigating the person. So we'll see if he's right this time. Maybe he learned something from pissing you people off, or is it your opinion that no one learns anything after age, oh, 28?

We get plenty of stories front-paged on /. that are astroturfed, self-promoting, and/or nearly total spin. (And that's not even including the astroturfed comments -- some of our more, ah, highly-ideological commenters don't seem to have any other work to do daily, and they can't all be living with their parents.) Why single out Mueller? (I'm asking that in general, I know you were answering someone's Mueller-specific question.)

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The best I can figure out is he pissed off the wrong people and someone paid an internet reputation management company to start an online campaign against him.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Local ID10T]

Florian is a paid astroturfer.

At one point he was a controversial blogger, then he got noticed, and now he is a paid mouthpiece who does not state upfront that the "facts" he champions are the opinions of his employers.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[GSloop]

Logical? I don't really consider skewing the facts as "logical." [And skewing the facts is the most charitable description I can use for his "truthiness."]

Re: His arguments against Google and it's dispute with Sun/Oracle about Java. The examples he used of infringing files was just total BS.

And that's just the first example.

Every time I read his dreck, I think. Man, what axe does this guy have to grind. Every time, if I take the time to drill down through the layers of crap, I find there really wasn't anything to begin with.

So, when that happens more than a few times one starts to simply say - "Ah, yeah that troll. I wish someone would check him into a mental institution - or worse."

Sure, the boy who cried wolf all those times - we was eventually right. But by that point everyone had learned to ignore him. And probably more than a few were overjoyed that he got eaten. [Provided he did, which I assume is the outcome. Pity if it was only his sheep.]

Moral: it '...shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.'

-Greg

Perhaps

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case he is plain wrong, there is nothing about the injunction in Germany that makes it valid elsewhere in Europe. If Apple wants to get their claims enforced, they'll have to sue and win in each country one by one to ensure a "total" injunction. The rules in Europe may be common, but the enforcement isn't. I find it curious he doesn't know that .Also, this will be appealed and very possibly overturned or restricted. Samsung has no less power in Europe than Apple, and in these things power is all that matters, "merits" of the case notwithstanding. See the curious case of Japan (bigger smartphone market than Germany), where Apple was the biggest two years ago, but is now very much overrun by Samsung (and Docomo). Apple isn't suing there at all.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Nick Ives]

I think Mueller is particularly offensive because he's managed to make himself a story. I recall a thread either on Groklaw or LWN where it was suggested that he had been in private conversation with PJ regarding their different analysis; he was privately admitting to being a troll.

I can't be bothered to go back and find all the links because life's too short. As to why single him out, well, it's simply because I remember him. I think if he wasn't so obnoxious about putting his name out there he might manage to go unnoticed whilst still getting traffic. Most other astroturfers have the common sense to submit stories as AC. If I could remember and identity them, I'd make a point of not clicking their links either.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

he manages to get continuously quoted by multiple media organizations despite, and I am being literal here, being wrong more often than he is right. He is far to good at this to just get add-sense money, my guess is that some cooperation with an axe to grind is funding him through a publicity management company to spreed fear of patents especially around Linux.

Re:Dont feed the troll

[gmhowell]

You mean besides the baby eating?

Wait, baby seals or baby humans?

Can we please get an "INGORE FLORIAN" checkbox

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE!

The guy's like incredibly annoying, a troll and full of crap.

Please, either quit posting his crap or give me a way to ignore the *astard.

Re:Can we please get an "INGORE FLORIAN" checkbox

[prefec2]

What is your problem with his position?

Re:Can we please get an "INGORE FLORIAN" checkbox

[dzfoo]

OK, so he's an asshole and you don't like him. What's inaccurate or biased about his comments on this particular piece, that Samsung is prevented from selling the Galaxy Tab in Europe?

Re:Can we please get an "INGORE FLORIAN" checkbox

[shutdown -p now]

So you're suggesting to Samsung lawyers that they refuse to attend the court sessions because "OMG Florian Mueller"? Is that some kind of new legal defense?

How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember sitting at a restaurant with a few Apple employees a few years ago chatting about all things computing. I remember there was always a tone and underlying implication in everything they were saying: "Apple is Different. People will naturally pick Apple products if given a choice. They are simply that much Better."

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[bonch]

Uh, why would it be humiliating for Apple to protect itself from getting ripped off? Every company protects itself from this. As an Apple spokesperson put it: “It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Even Slashdot has stopped another website from copying its content in the past.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they are humiliated. How will they cope with all the angry greeks on the internet!

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

And looking at Apple's sales data, that overwhelmingly seems to be true.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they are humiliated. How will they cope with all the angry greeks on the internet!

They'll likely respond better to the greeks than the geeks!

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonald's is also successful - it doesn't mean that it's better - it does mean that they've done a good job of marketing themselves. Yeah, I equate Apple to McDonalds - those who know better don't 'go' there.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[gnasher719]

As an Apple spokesperson put it: âoeItâ(TM)s no coincidence that Samsungâ(TM)s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging.

The Android prototypes that were shown before the release of the iPhone didn't look like an iPhone at all. They looked amazingly like a Blackberry, which was the marketleader at the time. Then the iPhone came, and everyone changed their designs.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[VGPowerlord]

I find it amusing that the EU blocked this.

If Apple were to attempt to block this in the US, one of the precedents that could come up in the case would be Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corporation, a look and feel case that Apple lost.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[JonJ]

You find me a laptop with the same quality trackpad, display and sturdiness as a MBP that's also a lot cheaper. Good luck and have fun.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Issarlk]

Don't forget to install Win7 on it too.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[dzfoo]

That's because Apple relied on copyright and a loosely interpreted license agreement with Microsoft.

Do you seriously not see the diffence with the current cases? Even the use of patents and trade marks point this out.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[narcc]

Then the iPhone came, and everyone changed their designs.

You know, Apple wasn't the first with a touchscreen phone.

Even if we ignore things like the decade-old Handspring Visor GSM module and focus on "modern" touchscreen phones, I can point to the LG Prada (announced in Dec. 2006, released Jan. 2007). You'll not that it had a capacitive touchscreen. (LG even claimed that Apple stole their design after they won a design award in Sept. 2006)

Before the Prada, we had a whole bunch of touchscreen phones -- so many you may even be interested in this Top 5 article from Dec. 2006. (Pay particular attention to the design of the 8525 -- you can clearly see the shadows of the iPhone.) Of course, the Prada is the first truly iPhone like phone -- I can only assume that LG used their time machine to beat Apple to the punch.

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

Asus N53SV-HDU2-SX108V i72630QM

Re:How Humiliating For Apple To Be Reduced To This

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Windows CE phones from the mid 2000's operate like the iPhone? I'd refute that... but instead just point out that even Microsoft scrapped CE/Windows Mobile to focus on their new Win 7 thing, since ... it wasn't like the iPhone!

terrible!

[Blymie]

After I heard this, I had a horrible dream!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guGchg4mbLs

Cronies...

[vvaduva]

And the use of government power by corporate cronies continues...why let the market decide which device should be sold and bought when you can use the power and violence of Government to work in your favor?

Re:Cronies...

[cdrguru]

The point is that today if such things were eliminated, Apple would be out of business in a month. Why wouldn't some company in China simply reproduce the iPad, iPhone, iXYZ, whatever for half the price? And, considering it cost them a tenth of the manufacturing cost (using 100% slave laber as opposed to Foxconn using people that are only 3/4th slaves), it would be extremely profitable.

For a month. Until someone else copied it yet again.

I'm really not sure why we aren't seeing a flood of iPad clones in the US. Some of them with backwards Apple logos on them and the like. The only thing I can imagine is that with the hardware and firmware copied such devices are blocked from connecting to iTunes meaning the cloners would have to (very expensively) set up their own servers and such.

Re:Cronies...

[Renraku]

Apple hardware is somewhat expensive and hard to replicate to begin with. They do use high quality parts. My guess is that some other people have tried to make clones using cheaper parts and they've fallen apart in their hands

Re:Cronies...

[PNutts]

And the use of government power by corporate cronies continues...why let the market decide which device should be sold and bought when you can use the power and violence of Government to work in your favor?

Yeah! We hate Apple for this! How dare they influence the EU to determine which browser we use! Oops, I meant hardware. I thought this was 2009 thread.

Re:Cronies...

[Anonymous Coward]

The product looks similar, but inside and on screen, it is somethign completely different. This is Apple abusing the system meant to protect them from copycat devices (ones that look same as Apple, with fake or very similar emblems ,and even have fake software. Which Samsung clearly isn't - it has Samsung written all over it.

Re:Cronies...

[Dragonslicer]

There's a huge difference between manufacturing a product that is intended to look nearly identical in order to confuse consumers, especially when the only difference is a subtle change to the trademark, and manufacturing a competing product that "looks the same" to the extent that it's also a rectangular tablet computer with rounded corners where the UI is similar to a standard computer.

Re:Cronies...

[TrancePhreak]

The parts are estimated at 50% of the price of the device on the market. That leaves lots of room for someone to come along and cheap them out.

Re:Cronies...

[Dr Max]

The Chinese actually invented the ipad, granted it was arguably a big iphone that ran xp but they were the first with that form factor.

Re:Cronies...

[RightSaidFred99]

Samsung did not reproduce the iPad. It's their own design, their own hardware, their own software. Apple is suing because it's "like" theirs, just like theirs is "like" tablets from 10 years ago.

Re:Cronies...

[Anonymous Coward]

They do use high quality parts.

Enjoy THAT koolaid while it lasts...

Lifespan of this non patent.

[ZombieBraintrust]

So what is the lifespan of this non patent? 5, 10, 20, 100 years?

Re:Lifespan of this non patent.

[idontgno]

The lifespans of Walt Disney and Sonny Bono, multiplied together.

Plus infinity.

Actually, assuming this is a registered Community Design right, 25 years after registration. But that's effectively infinite in terms of design fashion.

Why Everyone Hates Apple Fans In A Single Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to crying over your Starbucks about how Android is destroying your precious Apple products in sales.

This site is for people interested in tech news, not Hipster Douchebags like you.

Re:Why Everyone Hates Apple Fans In A Single Post

[joh]

Go back to crying over your Starbucks about how Android is destroying your precious Apple products in sales.

This site is for people interested in tech news, not Hipster Douchebags like you.

No, this site is for pseudo-geeky anonymous cowards talking themselves up into a rage.

Re:Why Everyone Hates Apple Fans In A Single Post

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, what is one of /.'s main mantras? Privacy - the freedom to be anonymous. Instead of attacking the argument, the first thing to come out is 'anonymous coward' in a cheap attempt to discredit the post. Not saying I agree with the previous reply (I am not that person), but hypocrisy like that pisses me off. At least be consistent and address the content.

Re:Why Everyone Hates Apple Fans In A Single Post

[joh]

I was exactly referring to the lack of any *technological* reasoning in this thread and how is "Go back to crying over your Starbucks about how Android is destroying your precious Apple products in sales" anything like an "argument"? Really.

Sorry for intruding into your privacy, but you're in public here, not private.

Pathetic Apple

[loconet]

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely ridiculous that anything in that document could be protected in any way.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[pxpt]

Also looks very similar to virtually every flat screen TV out there - perhaps Apple should start seeking damages from that market too...

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

"a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners."

Like these?

http://www.google.com/search?q=tablet+pc&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1166&bih=685

Apple has it's work cut out going after all of the imitators, especially those who built their tablets way before the iPad.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[phonewebcam]

They own the concept of a tablet? Wow, the reverse royalties from Kubrick must be awesome.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

Apple is both competing on trademarks and design innovation. People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point. Apple is willing to innovate even where it will kill current product lines. Microsoft could never do a good tablet because it's worried about the Windows franchise. It could never do a good phone because it needs to look like desktop Windows. Steve Jobs to his credit is fine selling iPads even if they cannibalize MacBook sales. He made iTunes for Windows even though not having iTunes there was a carrot to buy a Mac - he's good with iTunes on Windows as long as it sold iPods. He killed the iPod Mini for the Nano because he felt Solid State was the way forward. Apple is many things, being pathetic not being one i ascribe to it

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work. You may think you want a company run by geeks, but then you get Windows Zune, and Squirting files, and PlaysForSure. Of course Apple will fight for it's designs.

In a weird way, in our financial society, Apple not using available trademarks may open them up to shareholder lawsuits - not doing all to protect shareholder value and all that. It's a sucky system. Apple is not manipulating it. It is using one of it's many ways to compete. In the courtroom, and in the market.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single Microsoft Tablet PC device released since 2001 also has this shape. Some have keyboards, some don't.

Anyways here is a simple solution for Samsung. Just give away a case that makes those round corners rectangle instead.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[MrDoh!]

This is an iPad design from 2004 on a TV show;
https://plus.google.com/100241261662852079434/posts/12kf2e2BGjn

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is fairly innovative

I dont think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If your idea of "design innovation" is a rectangle with round corners then... I ... I feel sorry for you. I really am.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't argue with you on almost all point except I hadn't heard people saying the iPad would bomb. There were significant concerns about how well it would succeed and I think they did and do have merit; but with people realizing that they consume the internet not interact with it the iPad and it's apps fill that "niche" perfectly.

I also liked the Zune and the media center stuff that has come out of it but I do realize that almost none of it would have happened if not for Apple and the iPod.

As for opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits you are 100% correct. Even if Apple wanted to just quietly ignore any patent infringement they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to. There are many ways around that though. If Apple decided to unilaterally allow all companies to use their patents they could claim image and goodwill gains that would offset any potential monetary losses.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[StripedCow]

Fine. I just hope the engineers at Apple that read Slashdot feel good about themselves.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

If your idea of "design innovation" is a rectangle with round corners then... I ... I feel sorry for you. I really am.

I know ACs tend to be trolls, but...
I bring up the iPod, which went from 'it will never work' to 'we must stop Apple or it will control the world', I bring up the iPhone which went from 'it will never work' to 'we need to make sure other companies get the iPhone or else AT&T has an unfair advantage with the iPhone', I bring up the iPad which went from 'it will never work' to 'hey everybody, lets copy tablets' ... and you bring up rounded corners.

Apple is a design company. Of course its products will look cool. If you think Apple's advantage is solely because of industrial design, then you are missing a much bigger picture. People don't buy an iPad because of rounded corners. People buy it because it works, simply.

Of the major tech companies, Apple is best at creating things that seem simple to use. They have a simple external model that they expose to people. iOS is a microkernel, but people would never care. I don't know the filesystem for iOS, and I don't need to know. It just works, it's easy to get music, movies, and apps on it. It takes a lot of work and design to make a complicated system simple and consistent to end users. This is why people buy Apple products.

Microsoft is a pool of geeks. They don't make it easy for end users to use stuff. Take something simple like ejecting a USB device on Windows vs on a Mac. I'm a geek, and on Windows, I still need to think about what drive it is and check the volume. Google is made of geeks, and they're a bit better, because they try to be very clean. But they're still not as good as Apple in making things simple.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The injunction is about Samsung's tablet _looking_ too much like Apple's. Not functional, software issues -- they apparently _look_ too close to Apple's devices so Apple feign being butthurt about it.

And you bring up functional issues.

Which have nothing to do with the injunction. I feel even _more_ sorry for you.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

Apple is both competing on trademarks and design innovation. People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point. Apple is willing to innovate even where it will kill current product lines. Microsoft could never do a good tablet because it's worried about the Windows franchise. It could never do a good phone because it needs to look like desktop Windows. Steve Jobs to his credit is fine selling iPads even if they cannibalize MacBook sales. He made iTunes for Windows even though not having iTunes there was a carrot to buy a Mac - he's good with iTunes on Windows as long as it sold iPods. He killed the iPod Mini for the Nano because he felt Solid State was the way forward. Apple is many things, being pathetic not being one i ascribe to it

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work. You may think you want a company run by geeks, but then you get Windows Zune, and Squirting files, and PlaysForSure. Of course Apple will fight for it's designs.

In a weird way, in our financial society, Apple not using available trademarks may open them up to shareholder lawsuits - not doing all to protect shareholder value and all that. It's a sucky system. Apple is not manipulating it. It is using one of it's many ways to compete. In the courtroom, and in the market.

That's the most ignorant crock of you know what I've read on here...

The iPod was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of the Archos out at the time with a smaller hard drive, a different case on it, and a spinning wheel that not many reviewers liked...

The iPhone was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of many of the other phones out at the time with far less features and thrown into a different case...

The iPad was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of many of the other tablets out at the time with far less features and thrown into a different case...

You get the point. Apple doesn't innovate at all. They take an existing product, remove features from it, put it into a different case, and then sell it at a 250% markup.

That's their entire selling point. They sell a product that's stripped to the bare bones so any moron can use it, throw it into a shiny package, and sell it for a price where people feel exclusive buying it. Then when people start getting comfortable with the features they have and want more than just the one extra feature the next generation of iDiot has Apple goes lawsuit crazy and tries to bring everyone else innovating back down.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[shutdown -p now]

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two.

I dare say that either you don't see many phones, or else your definition of "like an iPhone" is so ridiculously broad that, by the same definition, iPhone itself would look like dozens Symbian and WinMo touchscreen phones before it.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[kegon]

People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point.

No, not really.

When the iPod was launched mp3 players were already tiny and popular. The innovation was that iPod had a tiny hard drive (and it wasn't the first to do that). No one said iPod would bomb.

Then the iPod touch came out and everyone said what an awesome phone it could be; no one said the iPhone would bomb. In fact the hype was so strong at the time, Apple could have made almost any phone and it would have been popular.

Before the iPad came out, everyone said it would be awesome. Steve Jobs was the only one saying that they had tried large scale touch UI but it "didn't work".

If Apple is saying that the Galaxy Tab looks too similar to the iPad then they really should find some new designers because there is nothing visually innovative about the iPad since the iPod touch.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

How can iPad sales eat into sales of MacBooks and such? iPad does not work by itself, you need a computer with iTunes.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Did you forget what Apple didn't release for windows? Like Final Cut and just about anything else? Or the fact that Apple still forbids you from installing their OS on your own PC? Apple worry a lot about cannibalization. Probably even much more than all other companies combined.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

Apple is fairly innovative, I agree. On the other hand, I'm not sure they were the first to come up with a rectangular phone with rounded borders and few buttons. Even if they were, it seems the most intuitive/obvious, when you have a touch display that enables you to use it as input, to reduce the space dedicated to buttons as much as possible and increase the space dedicated to the screen.

What I mean is... even if Apple _did_ invent rectangular shapes with rounded borders and few buttons, how does preventing everyone else from using similar designs improve market competition? (Hint: it doesn't.)

Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work.

That is irrelevant. Apple doesn't sell designs (like ARM does, for instance), it sells hardware and software. It doesn't sell intellectual property licenses: it sells actual physical objects.

And even if you assume Apple to be a "design company", they still look like litigious pricks. Look at the fashion industry... do you see litigation between designers over "design patents"? If Gucci doesn't need to prevent others from making similar products in order to profit, why does Apple?

I rather not give money to a bunch of control-freaks with a sense of entitlement, sorry.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not really.

When the iPod was launched mp3 players were already tiny and popular. The innovation was that iPod had a tiny hard drive (and it wasn't the first to do that). No one said iPod would bomb.

I can't believe nobody has quoted CmdrTaco at you.

Then the iPod touch came out and everyone said what an awesome phone it could be; no one said the iPhone would bomb.

Nobody said what an awesome phone the iPod Touch would be because it didn't exist before the iPhone. It debuted almost a year later. And plenty of people really did say the Phone would bomb.

In fact the hype was so strong at the time, Apple could have made almost any phone and it would have been popular.

The existence of hype does not prove the absence of naysaying...

Before the iPad came out, everyone said it would be awesome.

Apparently you were living in a cave for the past decade. There was far more skepticism of the iPad than there was of the iPhone. Right from the start there were tons of people dismissing it as nothing more than a big iPod Touch, and why would you want that, and tablets had never sold before and still wouldn't, blah blah blah. And "people" included many internet/print/video journalists.

Just as the old saying goes

[Opportunist]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.

Re:Just as the old saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, oh wait! Apple does.
...to the tune of 20 million and counting...

Re:Just as the old saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, copy.

Re:Just as the old saying goes

[jo_ham]

"Ooh, the iPhone is selling well, when everyone said it would fail utterly.... maybe we should get on that!"

Heard in Samsung's offices shortly before releasing their "iPhone killer".

If Apple "can't", then Samsung are a step below that, copying the "can't" - perhaps not a winning strategy?

(you'll note that Apple aren't suing HTC because their Desire/Incredible/etc looks like an iPhone... - it's not a "war on Android" or anything, as much as /. would like to make it out to be).

Hilariously, Apple is also one of Samsung's biggest customers for memory and LCD panels.

Re:Just as the old saying goes

[Dr Max]

Just because you 'copy' a swipe (the equivalent of pushing a button in pre touch screen days) or a rectangle with rounded corners dosn't mean the rest of your machine has to be worse. Sure samsung borrowed some elements from ios but they took the concepts a lot further (which apple is now copying). This is why apple is scared. If not there would be no point in stopping samsung, if apple is better and the same price.

Re:Just as the old saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, copy.

Fixed.

It's a preliminary injunction

[Kupfernigk]

And a high risk strategy. Currently Apple is doing everything it can to inflate its share price in the short term while creating enemies for the long term. An EU design registration must be on features that are not function-related. If it can be shown that a design feature is in fact the result of an in optimisation, or required for compatibility with a pre-existing requirement, it can be invalidated.

For instance, suppose I register a box with round corners. Now you show that the real reason for round corners is so that the box, designed to go in a pocket, will not put too much stress on the pocket material. It is a human factors improvement; it should not be usable as a design copyright.

I'm sure that Samsung will be actively pursuing any way of showing that Apple's tablet design follows naturally from engineering factors for a portable computer. Meanwhile, Apple had better hope its new manufacturing partners don't start to worry about which of their products it might go after.

Re:It's a preliminary injunction

[ahow628]

Samsung should go with the "You'll poke your eye out, kid!" defense.

Re:It's a preliminary injunction

[Dewin]

For instance, suppose I register a box with round corners. Now you show that the real reason for round corners is so that the box, designed to go in a pocket, will not put too much stress on the pocket material.

I know a lot of people who store their tablets/ereaders/etc in a backpack, which is basically a giant pocket on your back... and it does seem a very reasonable assumption.

It also makes it easier to get into any sort of carrying case -- hard corners means you need to line it up perfectly, whereas round ones mean you can just get it mostly-right and it will slide in easier.

So, even if the original intent of the design is for aesthetics, it does have practical use.

Re:It's a preliminary injunction

[SleazyRidr]

But wouldn't that then be a design that would qualify for a patent?

Re:It's a preliminary injunction

[dkf]

If they'd applied for a patent on exactly that back then, yes. Now? Too late. Can't be both non-functional and functional part of the design, and you can't switch a feature back and forth between the two just to try to get two bites at the legal protection cherry.

Apple statement

[bonch]

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Apple is in the right here. Certain companies just want to copy Apple's designs, slap Linux on them, and make money, and the only reason geek communities like Slashdot support it is because they run Linux, even though Slashdot has previously trashed other companies like Microsoft for ripping off people's ideas.

Just look at what Android phones looked like before and after the iPhone was released in 2007. At first, they looked like Blackberries, and then all the sudden, they all looked like iPhones.

Re:Apple statement

[synapse7]

"... from the shape... companies steal our ideas." They are saying our phone is rectangular and nobody else can also produce a rectangular phone seems ridiculous(asinine, other 3-4 syllable adverbs), yet you agree with this?

Re:Apple statement

[synapse7]

When I said phone I also meant tablet.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Before and after shots of Android are interesting. However, the removal of the keyboard is a direct result of the addition of a touch screen interface which makes physical keys superfluous.

Therefore, the argument for blocking out Android devices based on the above visual evidence would be that it's illegal to use multi-touch/ touch screens on phones which are operated by finger because Apple introduced this first.

I am not sure this argument will stand up in a court of law, given that we had touch interfaces and even finger based touch interfaces earlier.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yah, definitely. BUt wait.. What was this.. the iPaq phone version you say? Hmm.. You're right. Apple had the concept of a keyboard less screen down years before the competition. No, wait. They didn't.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/20/300_ipaq_copy.jpg

Apple has almost never "revolutionized" anything. They are simply, and appreciably so, the masters and refinement. Hell, Microsoft Research comes up with more original ideas in a week than Apple does in 5 years. However, Apple knows how to take great ideas and make incredible products. Something Microsoft, and many others, still struggle with.

Apple is very much in the wrong. They're trying to control "concepts", not innovative ideas.

Re:Apple statement

[whoever57]

Certain companies just want to copy Apple's designs, slap Linux on them, and make money

Yes, Apple invented the mobile phone and it's not like Apple took an open-source operating system and used it for the core of their OS, is it?

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not related to phones at all! That has absolutely 0 to do with this topic. If you feel that this tablet is a copy of Apple's design, that's your right. It seems like a fairly weak case to me. Wouldn't it be better to have all sorts of competing devices? Unless you are Apple or benefit from Apple's success via being a shareholder, what does it matter to you if the designs are copied?

Re:Apple statement

[phorm]

OK, so decent multitouch displays come along, and they drop the keyboard and then add a button or two on the bottom. The d-pad is less necessary due to the touchscreen so it gets dropped.

Note that other than a central "home" style button, i-devices *do not* have the offscreen buttons that most androids have (my previous device had home, context, settings, and back. Current has home, context, and back).

Other than that, rectangular with rounded corners.

Speaker on the top, microphone on the bottom. Charger slot on the side or bottom. If android manufacturers *really* wanted to copy the iphone, they'd have a consistent design for "media device" attachments (docks, stereos, etc). Different location for the camera, power, and various other bits. In terms of the extra buttons and overall layout, I actually prefer android devices.

Yes, a lot of smartphones look alike. There's only so many places to practically put things when you're dealing with a full-size touchscreen device. Buttons above the screen would interfere, and too many edge buttons are clunky. A lot of my stereo's and car head-units look alike too, because it makes sense.

Re:Apple statement

[Baloroth]

Pretty sure the fact that there was Android devices before the iPhone (incidentally Google bought Android in 2005... way before the iPhone) shows that Google isn't just copying their design and slapping Linux on it. Oh, and the base Android setup looks nothing like the base iPhone setup. Incidentally, you might want to look up the LG Prada, which had pictures of it released into the wild ~6 months before the iPhone (AFAICT) and looks quite similar. In fact, it's quite likely Apple copied that phone in making the iPhone (LG claimed Apple did, but never actually filed suit). So, Apple is in the right? I doubt it.

Re:Apple statement

[MacTO]

There are arguments that can be made either way.

Companies like Samsung could argue that consumers did not want a hardware keyboard, and a tablet/phone without a hardware keyboard reduces to an iPad/iPhone like design.

Granted, some of those devices do look uncannily like an iPad/iPhone. That doesn't really have to be the case. Imagine an ereader with a different display technology, and they provide variations on the physical design of tablets. Or look at PDA designs, and they provide variations on what an iPhone looks like.

Then again, how similar is similar? Just look at how laptops. Modern designs are quite different from those in the late 1980's, so much so that modern laptops look almost identical outside of the branding. Which suggests that all modern laptops have a common ancestor -- a ripped off design. And they probably do.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't give a shit what slashdotters think. They don't know ios from android or windows, or whatever mobile OS there are.

It's just a design decision, it's like saying that all car manufacturers should pay royalties to Ferrari if they want to paint their cars red. Let's look at this too, aren't a lot of car companies copying each other's designs, or even older ones, and you never hear anything about it. So, why is Apple reacting so badly?

Apple no longer has that custom hardware that placed it above it's competitors, or that incredible state of the art OS that actually made things better. All they have an image and all those special looks associated with it, the glossy icons, the rounded corners, the entire Apple culture exists because of this. Once people start to copy them, they'll have to change to stay in front, they'll have to drop the current Apple identity and at best will become just another hardware/software company.

In the IT world it's evolution or extinction. Wonder what Apple will choose. Well, I guess we'll see when iPhone 5 comes out.

Re:Apple statement

[jo_ham]

Everyone says that, out of context, as if it's "proof of the stupidity".

No, Apple is not saying you can't make rectangular phones with rounded corners - look at several of HTC's phones (also running Android, shock horror!) and note how they are not suing them for making a phone that looks like an iPhone.

It's all of the features *combined* - a distinctive rectangle with specific radius rounded corners being one of the several criteria - that cause Samsung's phone to be in breach (according to Apple, and it seems also the court in this case), not just one of those things, but all of them together.

This is akin to me releasing a cartoon about a yellow mouse called Bob - no problem. However, a black mouse with distinctive rounded ears called "Nicky"... well, I might be facing a lawsuit. The context is important.

Re:Apple statement

[Solandri]

Just look at what Android phones looked like before and after the iPhone was released in 2007.

Well yeah, if you limit your sample to phones which didn't look like an iPhone before the iPhone was released, of course it's going to look like they copied the iPhone. As it turns out LG announced this phone to the public with pics 3 weeks before the iPhone. Black, touchscreen covering nearly the entire front surface, rectangular, rounded corners, and icons arranged in a grid. So if we were to take your argument at face value, LG deserves credit for the current form factor of smartphones, Apple just happened to make the most successful copy, and Apple fans are deliberately ignoring history to spread misguided claims that Apple invented it all and others are copying from Apple.

The reality is that the current form factor is just the natural evolution of the smartphone due to a variety of factors, none of which has to do with a distinctive design that others are copying from LG (or Apple). You need to maximize screen size to comfortably browse the web on something the size of a phone, so the screen will cover almost the entire front surface. The screen needs to be black to maximize the contrast ratio - if you use a white screen you have to turn off the lights to maximize contrast. Capacitive touchscreens (which had just reached commercial critical mass, and the LG had before the iPhone) were responsive enough that they could replace trackballs or directional navigation keys. Rounded corners prevent it from poking you while in your pocket. And icons in a grid have been around since the Xerox Star IS in 1981; even earlier if you look outside computers. All of this is stuff which would be obvious to someone working in the field, and thus not worthy of patent protection.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia's stuff looked like that BEFORE Apple. You are one of those utterly pathetic losers that is love with a particular company. The fact that people modded you up are why no one visits Slashdot anymore.

Re:Apple statement

[stephanruby]

The picture you linked to is not stock Android, it's HTC Sense that was tailored for Verizon. With so many different permutations of the same code base over different hardware/carrier customizations, it's really easy to find Android examples that will support your argument.

And android does still have Blackberry-like phones, it's just that they're not very popular. Just take a look at these more recent examples.
http://www.androiddudes.com/2010/06/07/android-powered-acer-betouch-e130-betouch-e120/
And also, do note what the stock android interface looks like in the picture below the first one. Stock Android 1.6 is not nearly as pretty, or iPhone-like, as HTC's or Samsung's implementations.

If you want to blame anyone for making iPhone-like UIs, blame HTC or blame Samsung. Not that Apple is going to block HTC from importing phones anymore, HTC recently purchased some patents (that have already won against Apple in US courts) and so HTC could easily block Apple from importing iPhones/iPads into the US (long before Apple could even try to do the same back to HTC).

Re:Apple statement

[rastoboy29]

So....how long should Apple enjoy this advantage?  Forever?

It's not like their ideas were really that innovative or new--they just implemented extremely well.  I give them credit for that, but I was wanting an iPhone for over a decade before it existed.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

feel free to exclude all the android phones that don't look like an iphone still... e.g. physical keyboards... like all of those that look more like palms thank an iphone

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I would says it is a natural progression. On the flip side, look at the Samsung F700 music player. First shown in 2006. The iPhone was first shown in 2007.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-copying-samsung-2011-4

Re:Apple statement

[chrb]

LG and Samsung had phones that "looked like the iPhone" before the iPhone existed. http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/ http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Samsungvs.Apple_-550x391.jpg

Re:Apple statement

[__aaqvdr516]

You can't win over audiences without using all capital letters. Also, try using less facts.

Here are some more useless facts showing how Apple used the industrial designs of Braun in many of their products. Who's copying now?
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

Re:Apple statement

[TrancePhreak]

Have you heard of the LG Prada? Because it was announced and in pictures before the iPhone was released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Apple is in the right here. Certain companies just want to copy Apple's designs, slap Linux on them, and make money, and the only reason geek communities like Slashdot support it is because they run Linux, even though Slashdot has previously trashed other companies like Microsoft for ripping off people's ideas.

Just look at what Android phones looked like before and after the iPhone was released in 2007. At first, they looked like Blackberries, and then all the sudden, they all looked like iPhones.

You're a stupid fuck, aren't you?

Re:Apple statement

[kaffiene]

What a pathetic fanboi. You're barely worth ridiculing.

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen (and bonch) - I give you, from December 2006 (before the iPhone was even announced): the LG Prada phone! A rectangular beauty with rounded corners, the first phone with a capacitive touchscreen, a single button-bar at the bottom, and - truly innovative - a UI consisting of grids of icons representing your applications, including 4 static icons at the bottom that are consistent for all screens! Step right up, see the innovative wonder of the world that Apple shamelessly ripped off in its own race to the phone market...

Re:Apple statement

[gmhowell]

Then again, how similar is similar? Just look at how laptops. Modern designs are quite different from those in the late 1980's, so much so that modern laptops look almost identical outside of the branding. Which suggests that all modern laptops have a common ancestor -- a ripped off design. And they probably do.

You just may be right about a common ancestor to all modern laptops.

Re:Apple statement

[Biswa]

Of course the iPhone looked nothing like phones created four years ago .. not!

Re:Apple statement

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't look at the design document, did you? You should. There just isn't anyway that this should be protectable, unless there is more to it than the design...

What a relief - for those opposing patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent mess finally impacts non techies here in Europe. Some of them want a Galaxy tab. And they can't. Because of patent stuff. Much easier to explain than (invisible) innovation that hasn't happened because of patents, and (invisible) price hike because of patent related costs.

Or is this about patents? Or design rights? Actually it's about neither. It's about blocking competition. Using intellectual property. Don't care what flavour, it just sucks.

Re:What a relief - for those opposing patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, at least 3 or 4 people in Europe were waiting with breathless anticipation for the launch of the clunkily-named "Galaxy Tab 10.1," a knockoff of the iPad 2 which costs more or less the same price as an iPad.

The rest of the people don't give a shit, because they've already bought an iPad 2, and love it.

Not about patents

[prefec2]

This is not about patents. It is about the design of the Galaxy Tab which looks so similar to the iPad. I do not know the correct English term. In Germany it is called Produktmusterschutz (copyright on product pattern/design/the art of appearance). Like you are not allowed to open a fast food restaurant McDonald's without asking the company of that particular name. As they own the brand and the design of the logo and shops etc.

Re:Not about patents

[BarC0d3z]

Your post reminds me of that movie Coming to America... McDowell's and their Golden Arcs.

Re:Not about patents

[DdJ]

In the United States, this is called a "design patent". It's the mechanism by which such things as the shape of the coca cola bottle or the design of a font are protected.

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

Re:Not about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post reminds me of that movie Coming to America... McDowell's and their Golden Arcs.

Are they still having that special on Big Micks? If so I gotta get over there!

Re:Not about patents

[prefec2]

Thanks. In Germany it is more like a copyright than a patent. As a patent describes a technical principal, while the copyright protects a specific implementation. However, they got only an injunction which means this can change very rapidly.

Re:Not about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

First off.. this isn't a company opening up calling themselves "Apple" and not requesting permission. This is a direct competitor with a similar product. To continue with your McDonald's analagy (with Apple being McDonalds). A rival burger shop (Samsung) opens up down the street and has some success... Does McDonalds get to sue them and stop them from selling burgers because they are in a brown building with a drive-thru and play area? Or, more to the point, let's use some product similarities... Rectangular with rounded corners.. sounds like a french fry box to me. Sorry Samsung, can't sell fries now! Oh wait, you use pickles without ridges on your burgers and have a burger with an extra bun and thousand island dressing on it... guess you can't sell those either! Holy smokes, that soda container looks just like the cup we use with a lid, straw and everything! Man, I need to call McDonald's... maybe they'll give ME a cut!

Re:Not about patents

[Dragonslicer]

Despite using the word "patent", design patents in the United States are more like trademark and/or copyright than utility patents (what is usually meant by the word "patent").

Re:Not about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

so i cant make anything rectangular with rounded corners? I'm sure I can find plenty of mirrors and other items with prior art.

Re:Not about patents

[dzfoo]

They're also called "trade dress," which represent the look and feel of products.

Re:Not about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States, this is called a "design patent". It's the mechanism by which such things as the shape of the coca cola bottle or the design of a font are protected.

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

And in the US, simply changing the radius of a corner, or the texture of a surface can be sufficient to get around a design patent. Design patents are basically weak copyrights on the look of a product; just like you can't copyright the "boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, parents disapprove, boy and girl die" storyline but your own particular twist with Jimmy the flying clown and Edna the bearded mermaid with parents Lucille and Buck the first siamese transplants, you can't really design patent a rectangle with rounded corners but only your particular implementation.

You can get a design patent on a specific RATIO on dimensions and associated radii of corners, but changing the ratio or the radius is sufficient to get around the design patent.

For this reason, design patents are typically a "nice to have/pad the patent stack" type thing, but really provide a poor basis for legal protection - it's more so you can claim "patented!' to the masses when selling it. And for the record, in addition to several utility patents, I hold several design patents too - for the very reason of claiming even more "patented" parts of the products I design and sell. Yes, the $1200 a design patent costs to file and issue really does pay back in final sales via the marketing of "patented"...

Blocked in the EU, you say?

[93 Escort Wagon]

It was only a couple days ago here on Slashdot I read several comments along the lines of "that sort of crap only happens in your American legal system, not in Europe". So one of two things must be true.

1) Apple has a legitimate case; or

2) European law has the same issues as American law.

European Linux fans need to try to figure out which one it is without having their heads explode.

Re:Blocked in the EU, you say?

[Pecisk]

Judge doesn't care if Apple has legitimate case, he looks first if it does look like Apple can argue about something legal here. This action is to stop to cause damage to Apple (theoretically) due of illegal action. If Apple looses (and I bet it will, because otherwise they would have sued 6 months ago - now they are loosing market share and have launched lawyers to repair damage), they will open themselves to colossal civil suit with will eat trough their profits in Europe in minutes.

What is interesting that I didn't know that Europe has similar kind of injunctions than US. Not that I'm against them - product look copycatting is more reasonable to be angry about than software patents - but this case really looks moot and just temporary measure to frighten Samsung.

Re:Blocked in the EU, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe doesn't have EU wide court injuctions. Apple needs to get an injunction in each country in the EU. What a judge deems to be the law in Germany has no bearing in my home country.

Re:Blocked in the EU, you say?

[Dhalka226]

Judge doesn't care if Apple has legitimate case

Really? You're saying that the judge is willing to cause millions and millions of dollars of harm to somebody without believing their adversary has a good chance of winning?

The US has a lot of problems with its legal system, but that is not one of them. Here, a judge must make a determination not only about the potential harm somebody like Samsung might be causing, but about the likelihood that Apple has brought a winnable case (among other things).

Re:Blocked in the EU, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

What should happen is that all Apple ipads and Samsungs Galaxy should be prevented from sale. This would ensure:

a) Apple believe they have a legitimate claim
b) Encourage both companies to resolve the issue asap.

Re:Blocked in the EU, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're saying that the judge is willing to cause millions and millions of dollars
> of harm to somebody without believing their adversary has a good chance of winning?

Yes, because that judge is not in a position to make an assessment on the merit of the case. He can only determine whether a case exists which is valid within the law.

If he could he assess the "winnability" of a case in a few hours then we'd have no need for going to court. Think about it.

Apple continues to dominate

[jmcbain]

Being a fan of Apple is like being a fan of pure winning.

Shoe is on another foot now?

[macraig]

Perhaps Samsung should have left well enough alone a month ago?

This crap sickens me. Is it possible that our economies are becoming less rather than more ethical as civilization (d|)evolves?

Re:Shoe is on another foot now?

[_xeno_]

Yeah, except if you recall, Samsung's move was in retaliation of Apple attempting to ban imports of the Galaxy Tab into the US using the exact same crap reasoning they're getting away with in Europe.

Except as far as I know, they weren't able to get a preliminary injunction in the US, and instead are still in US court suing Samsung over rounded corners and arranging icons in a grid.

Samsung's patents, on the other hand, are based on actual technology. Whether they're really patent worthy or not I can't really say, but they're actual technology patents, and not rounded corners.

Re:Shoe is on another foot now?

[macraig]

It's so hard to tell who actually started what ('specially with news media cherry-picking), and what's the point of trying? It's all one endless continuum of bad corporate (human hierarchical) behavior. Whaddaya get when you view a corporate chain of command? A pyramid. And we all know pyramid schemes are bad!

so

[unity100]

samsung ripped off 'the rectangle', and 'rounded corners' ....

i think we have to thank apple for invention of 'the rectangle' and 'rounded corners', since apparently they were the inventors of these very important concepts, because everyone else into stone age has been so stupid that noone invented them ...................... not.

please, get real.

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

i think we have to thank apple for invention of 'the rectangle' and 'rounded corners', since apparently they were the inventors of these very important concepts

In a computing context, they were actually :

"Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.

When Steve and Bill passed a no-parking sign with rounded corners, it did the trick. "OK, I give up", Bill pleaded. "I'll see if it's as hard as I thought." He went back home to work on it.

Bill returned to Texaco Towers the following afternoon, with a big smile on his face. His demo was now drawing rectangles with beautifully rounded corners blisteringly fast, almost at the speed of plain rectangles. When he added the code to LisaGraf, he named the new primitive "RoundRects". Over the next few months, roundrects worked their way into various parts of the user interface, and soon became indispensable"

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

In a computing context, they were actually :

1981. So.. for how many years is a patent valid nowadays?

Thats why I'll newer buy Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that Microsoft is bad but Apple is even badder.

Re:Thats why I'll newer buy Apple

[gubers33]

Are Microsoft and Apple worse than your grammar?

I Insist,

[M0j0_j0j0]

Previous artwork exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablets_of_Stone

Re:I Insist,

[gubers33]

I knew I saw something that looked like an iPad before.

Now I know I want one

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on the fence, but if they're so close that they're getting sued for their look/feel, I just got that shove I need.

go one step further

[nimbius]

and ban all tablets until definitively proven they are useful in any context outside of cellular revenue projections and micro transaction based gaming.

Re:go one step further

[Anonymous Coward]

Tablets are very useful for reading comic books. As someone who has over 10,000 and has quite literally run out of room to store new comic books, I like that I'm able to legally purchase, download, and read new comic books on my Apple iPad and keep up with my favorite comic books.

I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[shugah]

http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[OvERKiLLsFFT]

Nope, the corners aren't round enough.

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[maroberts]

I must admit that I'm slightly puzzled by the award of a design patent to Apple as prior art certainly exists. One wonders what one has to do to challenge the validity of the patent in the EU?

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's funny... You have so many people saying "What's a tablet supposed to look like?" or "It's just a rectangle, you can't make a tablet look any different".

Well look at that, you've just given an example of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad design wise. Why can't other companies just be original with the design of the product?

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[MrDoh!]

https://plus.google.com/100241261662852079434/posts/12kf2e2BGjn
is close

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[compro01]

If you think that looks different from an ipad, you need to book an appointment with an optometrist. The only difference between them is the colour and the lack of a button.

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[White Flame]

What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.

Re:I think Gene Roddenberry beat Jobs to it.

[maroberts]

What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.

I think this is over a design patent awarded in Europe; the USPTO doesn't come into it.

eBay opportunity

[brunes69]

Time to buy as many as you can get your hands on to sell on eBay at a nice 25% markup.

Re:eBay opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

That presumes that anyone would want to buy one anyway. What possible reason would you buy this over an iPad, other than "OMG I HATES THE APPLE"?

Re:eBay opportunity

[Miamicanes]

>What possible reason would you buy this over an iPad, other than "OMG I HATES THE APPLE"?

Freedom to install software not blessed by Saint Steven d'Cupertino, directly from .apk if you feel like it?

Re:eBay opportunity

[gnasher719]

Time to buy as many as you can get your hands on to sell on eBay at a nice 25% markup.

Who would by Samsung for a 25% markup?

Re:eBay opportunity

[narcc]

What possible reason would you buy this over an iPad

It's thinner, lighter, faster, has a better display, etc ...

Re:eBay opportunity

[Dr Max]

If no one would want to buy one why is apple attacking them so aggressively.

Cue Crybaby Android fanboys...

[coinreturn]

Waaaa!

Re:Cue Crybaby Android fanboys...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the pathetic iSheep.

Hooray for Patents

[Haedrian]

This is a victory for innovation and one which the consumers will enjoy. Because we all know that all these patents are there to ensure that the consumers get the best possible option.

In opposite world!

Re:Hooray for Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is Samsung producing anything that could be remotely termed a "win" for consumers by producing a... knockoff... at pretty much the exact same price point as the original?

Why don't they devote their considerable resources to building something that doesn't look exactly like the competitor, and price it better than the iPad?

Let's not forget that Apple's products are ridiculously overpriced, according to conventional wisdom here! So Samsung's knockoff should be like, what - 30%, 40%, 50% cheaper than the iPad 2?

Re:Hooray for Patents

[Haedrian]

Nope, not going to feed the troll.

Re:Hooray for Patents

[cdrguru]

The motivation to clone is that it is cheaper and less risky. Someone else has already done the research and they have already tested the marketplace. Therefore, the cloner has a much better chance of success and can probably introduce a product at a lower price.

Obviously, if there were no impedements to this we would have only cloners and nobody doing anything except copying what someone else has already introduced. I can't imagine any company approving spending money on something "new" when they could back something "proven" instead. New would be clearly associated with risk and the possiblity of coming out with a real loser, whereas simply cloning what is already a success ensures success.

Re:Hooray for Patents

[Dr Max]

Yeah let’s lock it down so only big monopoly companies with loads of patents can make products.

Re:Hooray for Patents

[fferreres]

Except that you are wrong, and a first-mover advantage can last decades or even centuries.

software is a machine

[unity100]

says who. apple ?

apple has done a huge amount of research in inventing in many areas like, what, geometry ? so that they are able to sue samsung over RECTANGLE shape and ROUNDED CORNERS ?

before jumping in and sounding like an idiot like this, how about actually reading what is happening and what 'patent' is in question ?

Re:software is a machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be English? Learn to write. You're part of that anti-intellectual crowd.

yes.

[unity100]

instead, samsung should have gone back to drawing board to invent THE RECTANGLE and ROUNDED CORNERS. these are what they are being sued for.

Re:yes.

[Cutting_Crew]

how many other devices besides the tablet has rectangles with rounded corners? what about my calculator? my windows in the back of the house? what about my LCD screen at home made by samsung? i don't recall apple ever trying to sue over those types of things.

Re:yes.

[cforciea]

How many of those are competing products for Apple? It doesn't do any good to get somebody to quit making a product if it isn't one that is cutting into your market share.

to get to the nearest Samsung store...

[roc97007]

...five hour drive one way from Paris, six hours from Berlin.

You know

[unity100]

netherlands is just a few hours by train from most parts of europe in which any kind of tablet would have high sales. germany especially. or france. or britain. basically, this order is rather moot.

Re:You know

[Vectormatic]

sadly, the reason that the sales-block isnt effective immediatly is because the cases in the netherlands are ongoing, to be judged today and tomorrow, the final verdict isnt expected until a few weeks.

So yes, you can still get galaxy tabs (if they are released even, not sure), but that probably wont be long :(

Also, screw apple!

#OpApple

[Anonymous Coward]

please #Anonymous

Samsung totally ripped off Apple's... lame cable

[_xeno_]

Have you ever seen a Galaxy Tab? They totally ripped off Apple!

No, seriously, the connector it uses is some proprietary POS instead of just USB. Just like Apple's! It actually looks kind of like the iPod connector cable, except a different color and it says Samsung on it in giant letters.

I have no idea why Samsung would want their connector cable to look like an Apple cable, but I will admit when I first saw the tablet end-on with the cable sticking out, I figured it had to be an iPad because no one else would be so stupid as to use a proprietary connector when a simple micro-USB plug would work.

Actually, I could be wrong, because I didn't bother unplugging the cable, so it could be hiding a micro-USB plug under the Apple-esque oversized cable plug. Which would be incredibly silly, like requiring a music application to sync contact information to a cell phone.

I wonder if it also breaks as incredibly easily as Apple's cable? Nothing quite like seeing copper wires after only a few month's use!

Apple stole it first...

[OvERKiLLsFFT]

The clipboard on my desk is rectangular and has rounded corners, and it was made before the iPad. Where is the justice?!?!

Re:Apple stole it first...

[Vectormatic]

and arguably, someone could use a clipboard with paper to do computations on as well, so the handheld computer bit is covered too!

Fair point

[maroberts]

I'm in favour of Android products over Apple, because there is normally a substantial price difference and Android offers a less restrictive environment. However, there is little to no price difference between the Samsung and the iPad, and you have to pay an extra £150 to fully load it with memory (i.e. you can't put your own memory card in), so I'm not so convinced of the advantages of the Tab over the iPad(s).

Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[JonathanF]

Remember what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looked like in February this year? It was fatter and it only somewhat looked like what Apple was doing.

And then... the iPad 2 came. You can tell that Samsung completely freaked out that it would lose to Apple, because it almost immediately said it "would not be outdone" by the iPad's new design:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/24/samsung.says.galaxy.tab.101.thinner.to.beat.ipad/

Yep. Samsung openly admitted that it was going to change the shape of its tablet because of the iPad 2, just two weeks after it had unveiled its own work. And sure enough, in March, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was suddenly a lot thinner and looked remarkably much more like the iPad 2. I was at the CTIA's spring show, where they first showed off the remake: they even made it a source of pride how quickly they'd changed the look and had a glass case showing the old version and the new one.

I would personally keep the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on shelves because it's different enough, but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[gubers33]

I completely agree that they look the same, but under the hood many things are different with the two. I mean almost every flat screen TV looks the same, but they aren't when you plug them in.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Anonymous Coward]

See, now here's the point at which I dislike how this legal wrangling has evolved. Why can't Samsung have the right to redesign their tablet to look more like an iPad if that's what the consumer market wants and that's what the consumer market is buying?

Seriously, come on. The entire point of owning a business is to make money. To make money, you must design, market, and sell a product that the consumer (ie, the person with the disposable money/income) will want to spend said money upon. It's clear to anyone and their goat that Apple has found a way to do that. What I royally dislike is the idea that just because Apple is the market leader in this category that they suddenly have a mandate from [a/the/some] government to be the only company allowed to manufacture, advertise, and market any device in that category that has that same apparent shape/design.

If this were a case of Samsung making a tablet that looked darn similar, and called theirs the sPad, I'd say, fine, sue away and block the release. But there has to come a point where the nature of the device has some sway over the inevitable shape and form factor that the device will end up taking. It's the technological evolution of the device into that format. To me (and I despise the concept of the car analogy on Slashdot to death), this is no different than import car maker A suing to block the sales of import car maker B's newly redesigned sedan because it looks just too much like their own car, and consumers would be "confused" by the similarity, and clearly car maker B is "stealing their innovative ideas". I guess the moral of the story for Apple here is if you are someone that comes up with a great idea on a device - and get to the market with it and sell a whole bunch - you are granted a blank check right to veto any element from any competitor in the market that dares to try and release a device to sell against yours.

The part that really burns me about this is the hidden subtext that a company, once it's put out a product of its own, no longer has the right to redesign their products to meet consumer demand if there's an established market leader in place. In fact, every company in existence should just quit conducting market research, stop paying for focus groups, because lord knows any useful data you'll get from those, which normally helps to shape and drive refinement of one's own products, is dangerous to use. In this case you have Samsung design the tablet the way they thought the public would like it (which, admittedly, was a bad design decision), and then Apple announces their tablet - which people perhaps properly rave about once they see it. Apple's stance is clear here: Samsung already made their choice, so they no longer have the right to change their design to look more like the more popular iPad 2 even if that's what the consumer is demanding in their product. Apple apparently would require a company to design something against the wishes of the consumer (in this case), and obviously the end result of that is a lack of sales and the loss of a potential competitor. For Apple, this is fine; for the consumer, this is a disaster and shouldn't be allowed.

What this does is put a stranglehold on having any meaningful competition and choices for buyers. I don't like Apple as a company primarily because of this approach of theirs. If they can point to actual source code used that was written by Apple that is used by their competitor, fine. If they can point to designs they created in circuitry, that were ripped off, fine. If all they can cry about is saying that another company designed their tablet to "look like" theirs, and they designed their packaging to "look like" Apple's, tough luck in my book.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[organgtool]

Samsung openly admitted that it was going to change the shape of its tablet because of the iPad 2, just two weeks after it had unveiled its own work. And sure enough, in March, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was suddenly a lot thinner and looked remarkably much more like the iPad 2.

You're absolutely right. Once one company makes a minor incremental improvement such as making a device thinner, nobody else should be able to copy the concept of making thinner devices. They should be stuck making thick, outdated devices. That's how technology progresses.

Also, you act as if making devices thinner is as simple as making a smaller case. There are a TON of technological challenges to fit all of those components into a smaller space.

but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.

Yes, that is how the market works. Competition forces companies to find ways to make more powerful devices in smaller form factors. That doesn't mean that companies should be able to get government protection to impede the progress of their competitors.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Samsung openly admitted that it was going to improve its product to make it more competitive.

The swine! How dare they!

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[marcosdumay]

"But there has to come a point where the nature of the device has some sway over the inevitable shape and form factor that the device will end up taking."

In most countries the design protection laws are aware of that. Sansung may still lose that suit because of the shape of the (one, isn't it?) button in front of the phone, of actual shape (more specific than just "round") of the edges, but it is way unlikely that they lose it because they changed to a big touchscreen or started using round edges.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Dragonslicer]

"We have to make our tablet thinner because the iPad 2 is thinner" infringes a design patent? Isn't making the device as thin and light as reasonably possible an obvious goal for any handheld device? That's like saying Intel is stealing ideas from AMD when Intel tries to increase CPU clock speeds to keep up with AMD (and vice versa).

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Conception]

I don't particularly agree with Apple's stance, but your argument actually points out some reasons why it may be valid.

"To make money, you must design, market, and sell a product that the consumer..."

"In fact, every company in existence should just quit conducting market research, stop paying for focus groups..."

What Apple is saying, right or wrong, is that Samsung in fact failed to design and market a product that would be successful, they failed in their market research, failed in using focus groups and instead saw that Apple was successful and copied their design. Especially telling that they changed their design to match the iPads before their product release as Apple's success was more important to their design decisions then their own research and design.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Solandri]

I would personally keep the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on shelves because it's different enough, but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 also has a higher res screen than the iPad 2. If the iPad3 or iPad4 comes out with a higher-res screen, are you going to use the same reasoning you just did and claim "there's no question" that Apple wouldn't have increased the resolution "if it weren't for Samsung"?

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a shit?
you are allowed to make your stuff look like somebody else's.
at least you should be.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are competing, but how is this different from two restaurants competing? One offers a sale, the other does as well. One offers a free soup of the day, the other does.

Making a tablet thinner is not a design decision worth recognizing as being patented. If thin was, then the fashion industry has prior art.

Yes the tablets do look alike, but how different can you make two tablets? Basic black, white, and gray have been the staple colours in computers for decades. Both tablets have different numbers of buttons and ports. They have different OSes that look and act differently. They have different "covers".

What do you expect, Samsung to make a lime green tablet with flashing lights and a siren so as to avoid looking like Apple?

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[JonathanF]

There's a difference between improving your product and doing it purposefully in a way that makes your product look more like your competitor's. Samsung did this to copy the iPad 2's look, not just to get it thinner.

When Samsung goes from a fat design virtually ready to ship to a complete re-architecture of the casing in six weeks, that not only shows that it was relatively easy but that it was a knee-jerk reaction to emulate a rival product. And what does it say about Samsung that it could have easily delivered the same battery life and performance in a much thinner case but waited until Apple had put out the iPad 2 to suddenly get serious about it?

Again, if it were me, I wouldn't have been in Samsung's face about it. Still, there is zero question that this wasn't natural competitive evolution; this was Samsung being knocked out of complacency and deciding the best route was to imitate what Apple was doing.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[RightSaidFred99]

Your point is risible. Thin is an obviously desirable attribute, it's been the trend in laptops, phones, everything else. Your idiocy is in claiming that companies don't naturally compete.

Say I release a product that weighs 2 pounds, and it costs me $20 to make. I can make a 1.8 pound product for $30, but I don't - less profit margin. Suddenly my competitor releases one that weighs 1.9 pounds. Now I might decide I need to go to my 1.8 pound version, and quick, to compete.

Nobody's fucking "copying" anybody else, genius - this is how business works.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Cyberllama]

They looked at Apple's specs and said "Ok, we can make ours thinner than theirs by 1mm so we're the thinnest." That's not the same as "Ok, we can make ours look enough like theirs to confuse consumers into thinking their buying an iPad when they buy our product" which is the entire basis for Apple's claim here. They're saying they look so much alike people are confused. What's even more silly is the Galaxy tab comes in 3 different sizes.

The answer: don't develop new technology

[bigsexyjoe]

If you can't trace the intellectual property you are using, don't use it. That means don't your own R&D. In fact, if you hire software engineers, don't even have them do anything innovative.

If you do, you are taking a great risk. To increase your reward and compensate for the risk, patent everything and sue aggressively. By the way, since developing technology is now a high risk activity, it is not suitable for small companies or entrepreneurs. Excessive IP laws and suing people for innovating is the heart of capitalism.

Re:The answer: don't develop new technology

[bberens]

Yep, your best bet is to hope to stay under the radar until you can get scooped up by a big company with a patent war chest of their own. Otherwise you'll eventually wind up in the cross-hairs of some patent troll.

Re:Unjustied Nerdrage in ...

[semi-extrinsic]

found being guilty

Ehrm, what part of "preliminary injunction" is it that you don't understand?

Apple and the patents are getting out of hand

[gubers33]

I agree that you should be able to copy others work, but just because you have a touch screen tablet doesn't mean it is a knockoff. Essentially, the iPad is big iPod touch, if I offended an Apple fan with the statement I am sorry, but it is true. Essentially, the Galaxy is a big Droid without the phone. They run completely different operating systems. I mean I have a Samsung LED flat screen TV and it looks exactly like the many other LED flat screen TVs, but some of the TVs have different features. I think Apple knows that Samsung has added features they do not have. If you look at the specs, Samsung's tablet actually seems better. (Disclaimer: I have not used either and I am only comparing the specs, I personally would never buy a tablet, I perfer a laptop.) In terms of entertainment, it seems the Galaxy might be a better buy looking at the specs which have 1080p HD to the iPad's 720. And since the Galaxy uses Android and supports Flash you have play more games on it. I also think that having a USB I also think having a USB port is a big plus. But like I said I am not in the market for a Tablet. I have to admit they look the same on the outside, but under the hood not as much different chips and different OS.

Re:Apple and the patents are getting out of hand

[gubers33]

I meant SHOULD NOT be able to copy others' works.

Wrong, Apple shot first

[_xeno_]

You're wrong, Apple started this whole mess waaaaay back in April by suing Samsung over Android phones that they claimed "looked like an iPhone."

It was only later that Samsung started filing suits against Apple. I mean, hell, your own link mentions that the battle has been ongoing!

Apple started this. Samsung just refused to take it lying down.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[jo_ham]

And they had a point - Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone, to the point where practically every review mentioned it, so Apple sued them. Now, where it gets off track is that this is reported as "Apple trying to destroy Android" when it's really nothing of the sort - you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].

Although this story does show the amusing hypocrisy of slashdot where it's "good on Samsung! rar!" when they try to block iPhone sales and "boo! evil Apple! sue when you can't compete! you're running scared!" when Apple does the same thing.

Not that I think either company is coming off well here, but I assume their back room negotiations broke down before it got as far as court.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[_xeno_]

you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets

You might not, because you're not looking: Apple Sues HTC

Man, that took all of one search on Google to find. (Try "Apple sues HTC.")

If you want others, you can also try just flat-out searching for "Apple sues Android" which will get you such gems as Apple suing Motorola over Android and Amazon.com over having an App Store.

I can't find anything for them suing Sony in particular, but there's a lot of speculation that if they win their HTC suit, they'll be able to use that against every Android phone maker. So the best you can say is that they're not suing Sony yet.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[dgatwood]

I'm not arguing that Apple was necessarily right for filing the initial suit (as I don't know enough about the discussions leading up to it to make that call). I'm just pointing out that Samsung had the opportunity for proportional response, and instead chose the nuclear option. Up until that point, AFAIK (unless the mainstream media just hasn't reported on the case adequately), the lawsuit from Apple was asking for financial damages, which probably could have turned into an out-of-court settlement if Samsung had offered some sort of concessions. I have no idea what Apple would have actually asked them to do in exchange for dropping the suit, but I'd be surprised if the two parties were not well aware of the other side's demands.

As soon as Samsung took it to the next level and started trying to block importation, that's when things got ugly. Samsung made that choice. The decision to jump from a patent violation lawsuit to blocking the other company's ability to do business was entirely Samsung's, as far as I can tell. That's why I referred to it as mutually assured destruction in the best case, self destruction in the worst case. Taking such drastic steps is almost always counterproductive.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[_xeno_]

You know that article I linked to? It may not have made it clear, but Apple sued first, asking for an injunction to forbid sales of Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets (and a whole bunch of others, too) in the US.

It was Apple that went for the "nuclear option" as you put it from the very start. Samsung just responded in kind.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[scot4875]

Up until that point, AFAIK (unless the mainstream media just hasn't reported on the case adequately), the lawsuit from Apple was asking for financial damages, which probably could have turned into an out-of-court settlement if Samsung had offered some sort of concessions.

So poor Apple was *merely* trying to extort some money using our broken patent system, but then mean ol' Samsung actually decided to fight back? This is basically what you're saying?

--Jeremy

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[blind monkey 3]

I'm not arguing that Apple was necessarily right for filing the initial suit (as I don't know enough about the discussions leading up to it to make that call). I'm just pointing out that Samsung had the opportunity for proportional response, and instead chose the nuclear option.

Isn't suing the proportional response to suing? How can one side take the legal route and when the other side responds in kind, it becomes disproportional? Now the initiator is taking out more legal action and you are blaming who for the nuclear route?
With these sorts of legal suits, I do not know who will win (I suspect it will be the company with the most legal resources / government contacts) but I do know who will lose (the consumer).

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[jo_ham]

Nice selective quoting there.

If you want to debate, I suggest you quote the whole sentence. Here, I'll do it for you, since you don't seem to be capable of reading comprehension, but you're quick with the sarcastic "lmgtfy" comeback.

you don't see them suing HTC or Sony or any of several other manufacturers who make Android handsets because *their phones don't look like the iPhone* in terms of physical appearance and UI design, right down to the icons themselves (and not just the fact that they are rounded off squares in a grid, the actual images used were very samey). [software patent issues aside - the Samsung vs Apple issue is about the "copying" of the iPhone itself, not single UI elements or other nebulous things].

You know, pretty much the salient part of my whole post.

Nice try though, I'll give you 3/10 for effort.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[_xeno_]

Except... Apple is suing HTC and Motorola over Android-related patents. What exactly is your point? That they're not suing them over rounded corners, but instead using other bogus patents? (Specifically, if I recall, unlocking a phone with a touch screen.)

So your point is that the fact that Apple is using a different set of entirely bogus patents against HTC and Motorola and a completely bogus trademark against Amazon makes those lawsuits completely different from the bogus IP suit against Samsung, somehow?

I suppose you're technically right. Apple is abusing different areas of IP law in their various lawsuits. Yay Apple?

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[jo_ham]

Read the comment again very carefully - we are talking about the wholesale copy of the iPhone here, not the bogus "slide to unlock" patent, or the other nebulous things going on, which I addressed at the very beginning of this.

Apple's case against Samsung is for making a copy of the iPhone as a whole item - hardware, software, form factor all together. The German court clearly agrees, hence the preliminary injunction which Samsung will clearly appeal.

This is *not* about individual patent issues (which are not a concern in Europe - we do not have software patent laws like the US), so the big palaver surrounding that is neither here nor there (they're all suing each other it seems).

This particular case is about straightforward "you made a phone that everyone reviewing it said 'hey, that looks an awfully lot like an iPhone, unlike phones from other Android handset makers'", not a "you copied our totally innovative slide to unlock feature".

Again, read my comment carefully - it is useful to read the whole thing and not just stop halfway through like you did when you first quoted it - I assume that you simply stopped reading there and rushed to post with a triumphant "owned!" LMGTFY-style link, when reading comprehension is important.

Just to make it clear, since reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you, I'll go with bullet points:

1) this case, I believe Apple has a legitimate complaint. They're blatantly making an iPhone and iPad ripoff. Plenty of other handset makers have managed to make rest-looking and performing (and popular) touch screen phones without them being iPhone copies. Apple has not sued them as a result. Any corporation is going to sue to protect its brands, and they felt they had enough of a case to do so with Samsung.

2) in the HTC case, I think their claims are bogus. I do not believe that things like sliding to unlock should be (or really can be) defended as unique and innovative to the point of patenting. Those lawsuits are not about stopping HTC selling Android phones though, as much as they are about two big corporations slugging it out - neither really has a case to make there.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[jo_ham]

*rest-looking = great-looking

Autocorrect failure.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[_xeno_]

this case, I believe Apple has a legitimate complaint.

And you're completely wrong. The "design elements" Samsung copied are literally "rounded corners" and "displaying icons in a grid." There's nothing really unique about any of that.

Have you even seen the Samsung tablets? Like, in reality?

About the only thing that made me think "iPad" was that Best Buy had placed them next to the Apple section for some reason, and that instead of using a normal USB connector they used something that looks like the crappy iPod one. Once you actually look at them, they look nothing like an Apple anything.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[exomondo]

The "design elements" Samsung copied are literally "rounded corners" and "displaying icons in a grid." There's nothing really unique about any of that.

Also the icon has the same color which i thought that was a fairly obvious choice since at the time the defacto standard for smartphone UI (since most android manufacturers have their own skins) was iOS, keep consistency for the sake of the end user rather than to change just for the sake of change. It also has a very similar picture, but that wasn't created by either company anyway. Samsung's icons don't have rounded corners whereas Apple's do and if i set a green WP7 theme i would get a phone icon that looks pretty similar too.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[V for Vendetta]

Apple's case against Samsung is for making a copy of the iPhone as a whole item - hardware, software, form factor all together. The German court clearly agrees, hence the preliminary injunction which Samsung will clearly appeal.

This is misleading. A preliminary injunction ("Einstweilige Verfügung") in Germany doesn't mean the court agrees. The only thing the court agrees to is that you might have a case in a trial.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[dgatwood]

The proportional response is suing. Samsung asked the ITC for an import injunction. That's what made their reaction the nuclear response.

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[blind monkey 3]

The proportional response is suing. Samsung asked the ITC for an import injunction. That's what made their reaction the nuclear response.

The suit, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges patent and trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition. Apple is seeking injunctions, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as a finding that the alleged infringement was willful.

The above is an exerpt from http://allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/

Apple filed for an injunction, damages and punitive damages first - as well as contending that the infringement was willful.... the only thing left out appears to be the kitchen sink.
What, in your opinion, is a proportional response to that?

Re:Wrong, Apple shot first

[dgatwood]

That article says that Apple sought injunctions. That's not necessarily the same thing as seeking an import injunction. There are any number of things Apple could be trying to enjoin Samsung from doing. They could be enjoining them from using Apple-like packaging, using Apple-like ads, or any of the other thousand things they're doing that are blatant rip-offs of Apple's style.

Re:Samsung totally ripped off Apple's... lame cabl

[MrDoh!]

It's a standard, agreed upon, connector that others are able to use. It /looks/ like the Apple one, sure, but how else are you going to make a connector with that many connections you want plugged in one way? It's going to be flat by design.

Re:Samsung totally ripped off Apple's... lame cabl

[PCM2]

It's a standard, agreed upon, connector that others are able to use.

Actually, it's not. It looked like a standard, agreed-upon connector when it was first unveiled, but once people got hold of the actual hardware, they realized Samsung had tweaked the connector enough that it's essentially proprietary.

You can't patent popularisation

[moozh84]

The only real innovation that Apple can be credited for, is popularizing of certain product types (MP3 players, touchscreen phones and tablets) and bringing them into the mainstream with their huge marketing campaigns and their hipster appeal.

All of those product types already existed for years before Apple started making them. Apple did not revolutionize them from a technical engineering standpoint. They just made them cooler to have.

You can't patent that. You can't say that just because you brought tablets further into the mainstream that you own that market segment. There have been dozens if not hundreds of models of Microsoft Tablet PCs since 2001 and many of them looked like the iPad does now. These are prior art and invalidate Apple's patent.

Yes, companies are copying Apple by pushing cool new tablets right as Apple expands the market for tablet PCs. That's perfectly legal. It's like if a trendy clothing label started pushing a new bellbottom fashion lineup and they started selling like crazy. Any other clothing labels could also pick that time to push new bellbottom lineups. If they didn't invent the bellbottom pants, and they can't patent it after the fact, even if they try adding on stupid modifications to the style like "rounded corners".

Nokia N810

[RoccamOccam]

My Nokia N810 (circa 2007/2008) http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page/B000Y4AH3C-multimedia.jpg is rectangularly-shaped with rounded corners and a headphone jack. Is that what Apple is suing about?

I disagree with most of your points, Apple Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

GTFO, Apple Troll. Taking a look at your comments, it's obvious all you talk about is Macs, and I would say you're somewhat biased in that regard.

Regardless of that point, I own a Macbook Pro, but I, unlike most fanboys, can at least remain somewhat unopinionated when it comes to realizing the evil biz tactics they employ. I'm a industrial design engineer working as an interaction designer these days, but I can tell you that making something that is less than 1/3 of an inch thick, with a rectangular shape, will automatically be hard to differentiate from another rectangular shape with 1/3 of an inch's thickness. If there are similar colors, even harder. And, speaking as an industrial design engineer, I will also point out that any piece of hardware that size that wants to have a lifespan of at least a few years is going to be dark-colored or simply black. The finish is designed to keep the device looking pretty for as long as its lifespan will allow.

Please stop being the normal consumer troll that goes, "Hey, those two things look similar. I'll just take it at face value that one of them copied the other, instead of doing some introspection on the design, and reaching a more valid conclusion which expresses an understanding of the individual facets of a design and why the exist."

Troll.

You can't confuse them

[Anonymous Coward]

And I defy anyone to confuse any of these devices, they are quite obviously different.

I am just so glad apple does not make cars, sorry but can't have round wheels, you want glass windows, no way, seats no sorry they have to be milk crates........

It is easy to see which one has the smug, arrogant, hipster fawning all over it and using it as a lure to get you to join his cult. No possible chance of confusion.

Evolution & patents

[StripedCow]

The whole principle of evolution is that good ideas are copied and bad ideas die. This principle works so well that even mother nature uses it. Now, thanks to the patent system, this brilliant idea is basically being defeated.

Well, you might be right about one thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you might be right about one thing: you probably should be allowed to.

It would sure as hell eliminate at least 1/3 of all the trouble patents give us these days.

I believe prior art would also need to be restructured, though, which makes this much less likely.

It's a law to prevent product confusion, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

... like if someone would buy the Galaxy Tab because it looks like the iPad and wouldn't realize it's not an Apple product.
If there is a German judge who can think that, he should be voted for being the most stupid idiot on the planet... ... has he been living in a cave, or does he just think everyone around him is retarded?

Where is the big Apple logo smashed on the product/box? It has been elected the most valued brand on the planet... and a customer might be confused? Give me a break, that's just laughable... Even Steve Jobs has declared this to be the 'post-pc era of the tablet', was he talking about just one tablet?

Pathetic!

Re:Unjustied Nerdrage in ...

[Hatta]

preliminary injunction sounds a lot like guilty before proven innocent.

What this might be more about...

[TrancePhreak]

The Samsung Galaxy S2 is outselling Apple's flagship in parts of the world. Just look at the crazy amount of pre-orders: http://www.getyourgadgetsgoing.com/2011/05/09/3-million-samsung-galaxy-s2-have-been-preorderd/

Re:What this might be more about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that Samsung's huge advantage is the newest iteration of Amoled, the tech so far off limits to Apple - which instead went with high-res LCD for the iPhone. While high-res is very useful, it's not something that sells when placed neck-to-neck with this little beast and it's crisply colored screen. Samsung has a winner here, and I bet that execs at Apple are very nervous about it.
Especially as they might be eating Apple's cake, due to many potential iPhone buyers who are loosing patience since the iP5 release got postponed (and they finally got something worthy).

And the rumour is that Japan earthquake is the prime factor for the delay, as it seems that Apple had contracts using parts produced in devastated areas. Samsung probably relies a lot more on their own manufacturing, so they managed to beat Apple to the punch.

So, while experiencing extraordinaly high growth, Apples position and outlook isn't what they expected. Everybody just rides on waves of exploding smartphone adoption. It is now extremely lucrative market. Android, if it goes over the 70% mark, will threaten the current position of the iOS platform (and, well, Android Market is not that bad anymore), while Samsung threatens to compete for their premium position with a stunningly good product (and one using the sw platform that is now as relevant as iOS). No wonder they are in patent and design war everywhere (fortunately only the 10.1 Tab so far seems to be harmed, in EU and Australia - I hope Apple will fail to do any more damage).

How can a local german court....

[Anonymous Coward]

...have jurisdiction for the whole EU? It smells like BS from Florian Mueller...

Highly unlikely iPad 2 copied anyone

[jamrock]

For another, look at the iPad 2, notice how much cooler it is that the iPad 1. That because even in their brilliance, Apple saw their competitors come up with cool ideas they missed.

It's extremely unlikely that Apple co-opted any of their competitors' hardware ideas for the iPad 2, which was released less than a year after the original. The design would have been finalized months before, probably before the original model shipped, then there would have been consultations with manufacturers, procurement of components, tooling up for production, testing, etc.

Organizing the supply chain for production of a complex, high-volume device like the iPad 2 doesn't happen overnight, and once the trigger is pulled on the decision, altering specs is like trying to turn a supertanker on a dime. Even if they saw something they wanted to copy for iPad 2, it would have been next to impossible to incorporate it into production. It would have caused havoc with component procurement, manufacturing, testing, marketing, etc., and would have introduced delays which would probably have been unmanageable.

Re:Highly unlikely iPad 2 copied anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

"he design would have been finalized months before, probably before the original model shipped, then there would have been consultations with manufacturers, procurement of components, tooling up for production, testing, etc" That is probably exactly what would have happened, had it been designed by IBM

Orders vs. Sales

[jamrock]

The Samsung Galaxy S2 is outselling Apple's flagship in parts of the world. Just look at the crazy amount of pre-orders

There certainly have been a great many pre-orders —and shipments— of Tabs, but how many have been converted into sales to actual customers? And of those, how many have been returned? There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that the return rates have been quite high.

I'm not trying to troll; I'm really keenly interested to see if any competing tablets have managed to gain traction against the iPad, because as it stands at the moment, Apple seems to be asserting iPod-like dominance over the category. Their competitors are fighting a juggernaut, and the longer they take to bring a viable rival to market, the much more difficult it's going to be for them to get some mind share. Right now the general public, not those of us who frequent tech blogs, only know that there's the iPad, and may have heard that there are some other devices available. This is the major reason we're seeing so many half-baked tablets being rushed out the door: the manufacturers know that the device isn't quite ready, but they have no choice but to ship if they have any hope of gaining some sort of attention for their offerings. They may stumble, but they know that every second longer they take to throw their hat into the ring is another second Apple is using to lock up an incredibly lucrative market.

The unfortunate thing for Apple's competitors is that they may find themselves battling for a very distant second place. The iPad is riding high, wide, and handsome, and the Xoom, TouchPad, Playbook etc., are slugging it out among themselves for Apple's scraps.

Re:Orders vs. Sales

[Vectormatic]

The OP might have made this clearer, but the Galaxy S2 isnt a tablet, it is Samsung's current flagship android phone, and i can anecdotally confirm that demand for the S2 is very high, most stores have little or no stock, even with regular shipment. These things sell like hot-cakes here.

Apple trampling on innovation !

[Anonymous Coward]

One small step for Apple, one giant plunge for innovation.

Once you think his work business

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.Once you think his work business
Including north face sale work load, it must also be one of, you will enjoy (this will bring the ability to succeed), this may make you feel very proud to be the owner.

Good artists copy....

[pitje]

a favorite phrase of Jobs: "Good artists copy; great artists steal."

Re:Good artists copy....

[KZigurs]

Originally by a certain Pablo Picasso btw.

Seriuosly?

[MemoryMegaMall.com]

With all of the court cases Apple's been involved in. I guess there lawyers were running out of work and wanted a paid vacation to the UK. IMO the Galaxy kicks the iPads ASS anyway, thats probably what the real issue is.