Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Halts Galaxy Tablet Promotion In Germany

An anonymous reader writes "Samsung Electronics said Sunday it has pulled its latest Galaxy tablet from the IFA trade show in Berlin, after a German court approved an Apple-requested injunction — the latest move in a wide-reaching patent dispute between the two firms."

325 comments

  1. One ...! by ego+centrik · · Score: 0

    _ there was only one.

  2. That backfired. by drolli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Clever, Apple, clever. Today from the "How do i make my competitor look more important than he probably is"-department.

    Attention for free. Show you tablet one day on a Exhibition, then get the free headlines that "It was pulled due to a court order from Apple".

    This directly makes the tables an competitor to the ipad (which they are not, they have different audiences, different sizes, and different advantages/disadvantages; i could well imagine to buy both).

    1. Re:That backfired. by Hadlock · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The only way someone this late in the game is going to buy an Android tablet is one of three ways:

      1) Integrated as part of an ereader (B&N, soon Amazon, etc)
      2) Potential customer has never used an iPad before
      3) Potential customer bought online without test driving one in a store first

      Don't get me wrong, I love android (and my android phone), but until Google sorts out Android on the tablet, Apple's product is still light years ahead of Android in the tablet market (i.e. for the average consumer, don't tell me about App Launcher X for the power user please). Android has a long ways to go to be competitive in this market, and I suspect the only reason corporations/manufacturers are being dragged kicking and screaming in to this market (how many CEOs have flat out gone on the record to denounce the tablet market in slashdot stories in the last quarter?) is that stockholders want a piece of that Juicy iPad Market despite android not being ready. If I was being forced by the board and stockholders to produce an Android tablet, I'd be making the same cautious remarks about sales figures, and doing premptive damage control now rather than after the Christmas retail season where retailers are sitting on mountains of unsold non-iPad tablet stock.

      The hardware is amazing, but until Android catches up, tablets are going to be a non-starter in the retail sector unless you can dramatically improve the software by ten-fold, or get the price of a full-featured 9" tablet under $150

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:That backfired. by drolli · · Score: 2

      i bought a first gen galaxy-tab and it has proven to be what i expected it to be:

      -Universal e-book reader
      -good device for viewing documents of all kind
      -fits in the pocket of my hiking trouser
      -reasonable web browser
      -excellent software selection
      -easy to develop your own small apps

      i find the hickups which seem to be related to samsung using an own filesystem a little annoying, but overall the decision was right.

    3. Re:That backfired. by AndGodSed · · Score: 2

      The only way someone this late in the game is going to buy an Android tablet is one of three ways:

      1) Integrated as part of an ereader (B&N, soon Amazon, etc)

      2) Potential customer has never used an iPad before

      3) Potential customer bought online without test driving one in a store first

      *AHEM*

      I bought a first gen 7" Tab, and will get one of the newer ones later this year/early next year.

      To answer your three points one by one:

      1) It isn't an integrated e-reader (obviously) but the Amazon Kindle app works fantastically on it.

      2) I used iPad 1's extensively before making my buying devision - I was even given one to use for two days and reviewed it for my blog. I dislike it.

      3) Further to my point above, I used the iPad 1, and since it came out the iPad 2 as well.

      Now to my buying decisions specific to me getting the 7"er GTab P1000

      1) Petter dot pitch, or pixel density of screen resolution. (easier on the eyes to read)
      2) At least similar internal hardware specs.
      3) No walled garden crap.
      4) It has a better form factor than any larger tablets - iPad cannot be compared here because I dislike any of the 10" tablets - for my use they won't work.
      5) It makes and receives phonecalls and sms'es. It is also my phone - one device to perform two functions.
      6) I can easily build apps for it myself. (and I have - not in market, personal use for notifying when one of my works webservers decide to go bork)
      7) 3G/HSUPA, WiFi and GSM on my 16gig model for less than an iPad 3G would cost, and I can add a flash card if I so choose - no need so far.

      I have not rooted my device, no need. Two things the iPad does better than the gTab is MUCH better battery life (I usually get a day to a day and a half out of my Tab) and the viewing angle on the iPad screen is better. I gladly live with those two for all the other advantages it has.

      The Tab is a superior device.

    4. Re:That backfired. by somersault · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the built in Android desktop/launcher? o_0

      Whenever I've used iPhones and iPads, I've hated them simply for the lack of a "back" button, which is my most used button on Android, both in 2.x when it was an actual button, and 3.x where it's a soft-button in the corner.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:That backfired. by JanneM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The only way someone this late in the game is going to buy an Android tabletâ¦"

      25 million tablets sold. 1.1 billion people in the industrialized world. About 2.3% of the developed world population owns a tablet. That's "late in the game"?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re:That backfired. by MrHanky · · Score: 1, Informative

      I read a review of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 the other day, which stated it was currently the best consumer tablet out there, comparing it positively to the iPad 2 (Norwegian site amobil.no). Naturally, some asshat fanboy commented on it, stating outright that the reviewer was corrupt and that no other review had found the 10.1 remarkable at all, so I googled it and read some other reviews. Not one said the iPad 2 was lightyears ahead, most seemed to think they were about equal in quality, with some pros and cons for each.

      So basically, you're full of shit.

    7. Re:That backfired. by fraktus · · Score: 1

      -excellent software selection

      Is it only me, but not being able to develop in C++ is a show stopper...
      Ok I know there is the NDK, tried that done that... having to read an tutorial of several pages to explain how to attach your debugger is not for me. I would be glad to pay for an IDE with a comfortable debugger in C++ for Android... until that I stay coding on my Mac...

      --
      In cyberspace nobody knows you're a cat!
    8. Re:That backfired. by Youth+Invent · · Score: 1

      yeah, samsung galaxy is a good tab

      --
      Hi, my name is Aniee , and i am from Student Forum site, its a forum i creat
    9. Re:That backfired. by Wovel · · Score: 0

      So you found one Norweigen Android site gave the Tab a favorable review, and that is your evidence thatnit must be a superior product? The Apple web site says the iPad is better. Of course thus entire thread is irrelevant. Nothing changes the face that the Tab is merely a clone device.

    10. Re:That backfired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummmmmm one of the first stages of apple starting to realise their iJunk is just that JUNK never ever ever have anythink to do with apple at all , Dont fall for the TV con men . It is about time some court somewhere stood up to the thugs that are apple for that is all they are thugs of the highest grade the Mafia are better people

    11. Re:That backfired. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      after the Christmas retail season where retailers are sitting on mountains of unsold non-iPad tablet stock.

      It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Maybe I won't be too grumpy around Christmas season after all. By then the warmth of the soldering iron will be appreciated.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:That backfired. by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      You typed in all those letters just to prove you can't read?

    13. Re:That backfired. by mkdx · · Score: 1
      I used iPad 2 first, set it up for a friend who bought it and installed all software they wanted. You know what I think? It's quite overrated, I thought it's heaps ahead of other tablets in market in a way that justifies Apple lock-in, but it's not. I got Galaxy Tab 10.1 a month or so after and quite happy with it. Thank you very much.

      Don't get me wrong

      Didn't...

    14. Re:That backfired. by blackpig · · Score: 1

      The September 2011 issue of 'Australian Personal Computer' also put the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ahead of the iPad 2 in a review of available tablets

      http://apcmag.com/whats_inside_apc_this_month.htm

    15. Re:That backfired. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      The iPad2 is a vastly superior device. Not because of any features it has or because I like it, I don't, but because the iPad2 has made Apple bucket loads of money whereas the Galaxy Tab hasn't made Samsung squat.

      People like to buy iPads, they don't like to buy anything else, do with that what you will.

    16. Re:That backfired. by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 7.7 are totally new devices, one released just a couple of weeks ago, the other still unreleased. If I followed your kind of "thinking", I could just as well claim the iPhone5 a dismal failure. But things tend to change.

    17. Re:That backfired. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The Apple web site says the iPad is better

      Read it again and think in your head that quite possibly it was sarcastic.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Doesn't make sense by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

    Apple has no injunction against any Samsung 7" tablet, and hasn't tried to get one. So Apple is definitely not the reason for this withdrawal. Maybe Lenovo is right, and maybe Samsung has only sold 20,000 of these tablets to end user world wide so far.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense by EdZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple has no injunction against any Samsung 7" tablet, and hasn't tried to get one

      Samsung itself, along with hundreds of news outlets, would no doubt be interested in hearing your theory. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to back it up?

    2. Re:Doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Since when do Apple fanboys/viral-marketing-droids or even Apple's lawyers need evidence? They just fabricate stuff out of thin air to fit their view of the world.

    3. Re:Doesn't make sense by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That's because they know that all court decisions have an element of randomness.

      Imagine if they win: They'll have a legally enforced monopoly on tablets!

      If they lose...no biggie when you've got billions in cash.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Doesn't make sense by crossword.bob · · Score: 2

      Imagine if they win: They'll have a legally enforced monopoly on tablets!

      Not so. They'll have a legally enforced monopoly on a very particular design of tablets.

      Like the judge said: “There are a lot of alternative ways to design a tablet device, as the market amply shows.” Doesn't sound like he has any interest in stopping others from making tablets.

    5. Re:Doesn't make sense by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Why can't this same judge see all the devices which were designed prior to the iPad and see that Samsung could just as easily be copying those?

      (eg. http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/ )

      I don't get it ... hence my comment about the outcome of all lawsuits has a random/human element to them and no matter how "obvious" things are the court might still make the wrong decision.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Doesn't make sense by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Like the judge said: âoeThere are a lot of alternative ways to design a
      > tablet device, as the market amply shows.â

      Exactly. I mean, you could make it cube-shaped, or design it for dual-use as a soccer ball. But a flat device with a screen? No way! Only Apple could ever design something as innovative...

    7. Re:Doesn't make sense by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Not so. They'll have a legally enforced monopoly on a very particular design of tablets.

      Like the judge said: âoeThere are a lot of alternative ways to design a tablet device, as the market amply shows.â Doesn't sound like he has any interest in stopping others from making tablets.

      Then, why did Apple choose to steal other peoples' design, when they could have design their own tablet?

    8. Re:Doesn't make sense by Wovel · · Score: 2

      Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s.... Nice try though. Why don't you try and look up things relevant to this case instead of irrelevant distractions.

    9. Re:Doesn't make sense by Wovel · · Score: 1

      The registered the design in the 90s. I kowthis when you post some picture of the Knight-rider newspaper reader prototype you think looks like an iPad. Go ahead if you want to make an ass of yourself, who am I to stop you.

    10. Re:Doesn't make sense by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      a) Which part of the "Samsung could just as easily be copying..." did you miss?

      (If they're copying anything at all)

      b) Which one of the similar 1980s...1970s...1960s... gadgets posted here did you fail to see?

      Unless Apple has an email from the CEO of Samsung telling the engineers to "copy the iPad" then this is pure bullshit.

      And let's face it, once you decide to make a "pad device using the Android operating system" then it's a pretty generic design. I'd be really amazed if it DIDN'T look like that.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the judge said: “There are a lot of alternative ways to design a tablet device, as the market amply shows..

      Very true! We could make the screen round and put it on the back of the device instead of the front. Or maybe make it triangular with hardware buttons on the side.

    12. Re:Doesn't make sense by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s

      Can you be more specific about this? I'm having trouble finding more information on Google.

    13. Re:Doesn't make sense by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget the Quote from Steve Jobs himself:

      "Good artists copy. Great artists steal"

      One could infer that stealing from competitors has always been allowed if not encouraged by those running Apple.

    14. Re:Doesn't make sense by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yep, citation needed. Apple is incredibly secretive about its designs before launch date.

      I'd be utterly amazed if they'd registered a public design years before the product was launched.

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:Doesn't make sense by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because Apple registered the design in Europe in the mid-90s.... Nice try though. Why don't you try and look up things relevant to this case instead of irrelevant distractions.

      Ummm, no. The design was registered in 2004. HOWEVER, much like registered trademarks, registered designs are not considered live until you start using them - go ahead and register your design or trademark, but until you start using them in commerce they are considered inactive. And if someone else starts using the mark or design prior to your use, then they get to keep using the mark or design thereafter.

      Thus the reason Samsung's 2006 media viewer is considered prior art for Samsung's own tablets, as it provides a design language for Samsung to use.

      Apple may have registered the design in 2004, but because they did not start using it until 2009, it wasn't actually active and any company that started using the same design prior to 2009 can continue to use that same design without concern.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:Doesn't make sense by crossword.bob · · Score: 1

      I'm no lawyer, and my understanding of the details of the case come from a Google-powered translation of the filing from German to Legalese, and a layman translation from Legalese to English, but much play was made of the fact that 6 particular design elements were shared by every generation of iPod touch, iPhone and iPad (together with an unusually thin design (compared with pre-existing tablets)), and that these devices have become successful enough to make this particular design well-established (unlike pictures of the crunchpad prototype and other flopped devices). I suspect (but can't claim to know for sure) that Apple's mind-share elevates their claim to a distinctive brand design, legally speaking.

      At the end of the day, I'm nowhere near qualified to say who should win here, but the claims that, were Apple to win, they'd hold a monopoly over every reasonable tablet design is pure FUD. There are plenty perfectly good tablet designs left for others to lay claim to.

      Regarding the picture frame, I've not seen one up close, but unless it displays a grid of coloured icons when powered up, it doesn't fit the 6 design elements claimed.

    17. Re:Doesn't make sense by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      The design patent is from 2004. NOt really the "mid 90s"

    18. Re:Doesn't make sense by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      2004 is not mid 90s.

    19. Re:Doesn't make sense by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget the Quote from Steve Jobs himself:

      "Good artists copy. Great artists steal"

      One could infer that stealing from competitors has always been allowed if not encouraged by those running Apple.

      He stole that quote from Picasso. Oh, the irony.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple did not invent the tablet PC, but they want to ban anyone else from making anything resembling a tablet PC.

    1. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      No, Apple wants to stop companies building tablets that look very much the same as an iPad. There was a recent review of tablets on theregister, with photos of ten tablets, and eight of them were designed to look very much different from an iPad.

    2. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPad is not an original design. It's copied from tablets prior to it.

      Basically, fuck Apple.

    3. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by webmistressrachel · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is NOTHING unique about the iPad, certainly nothing unique that other manufacturers do.

      Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.

      Material? Common in the Hi-Fi and A/V industry. Copied, blatantly, by Apple.

      Software? OS? Walled garden? Unique, and UNWANTED by everyone that hasn't bought this tablet!! (and uncopied by any other maker!)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    4. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They look almost identical to samsung tvs, just smaller.
      Samsung made its tvs before apple made its ipad

    5. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.

      Don't forget that Apple actually lied in court by showing distorted images making the sizes look the same when they are quite different. The previously did the same thing with the Galaxy Samsung S phone so this is a well tried tactic by Apple

    6. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually no they didn't. They present pictures of both (yes those picture aspects were changed to make them look more familiar) but they also had physical representations of the models in court. The decision wasn't made off the photo's alone.

    7. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Actually no they didn't. They present pictures of both (yes those picture aspects were changed to make them look more familiar) but they also had physical representations of the models in court. The decision wasn't made off the photo's alone.

      Do you have a citation for that?

    8. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by somersault · · Score: 0

      Actually no they didn't [...] yes those picture aspects were changed to make them look more familiar

      Which is it?

      It's sad that you guys are so brainwashed as to defend a company that's lying to a court, while at the same time admitting that they lied.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple themselves stated in the evidence that the Galaxy S was larger in dimensions and the photo in question was just one (I believe it one of the photos on page 28 of the evidence presented). It was the only photo with the 'bad' dimensions. It is believed by legal experts that the photo is actually a prototype photo similar to the mock ups released by Samsung prior to the actual product release showing it was 'thinner' than the iPad.

      http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

      Galaxy S does include “some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions.” This supports the idea that Apple isn’t trying to secretly submit this evidence to the courts. Many have noted a German court’s decision to grant Apple with the original preliminary injunction on the Galaxy tab didn’t take the doctored images into account. In fact, patent expert Florian Mueller noted ”the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s pre-emptive opposition pleading” and also stated “Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple. If Samsung wants to inspire confidence, it has to understand that half the truth is sometimes tantamount to a whole lie.”

      http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/is-apple-faking-evidence-to-crush-the-competition-not-likely.ars

      Müller doubts that the images are outcome-determinative for the case in The Netherlands. "Apple has asserted in its Dutch complaint several technical patents, unrelated to the size of the device, and a Community design that's also about a shape rather than a particular size," he said. Furthermore, Apple clearly noted that there is a size difference between the two devices in its legal filing.

      http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/
      http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

      The decision to ban was not made of off a single photo out of a series of photos. Would you, if you were a judge, base your decision off of an image when the relevant piece of hardware can simply be handed to you for inspection?

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246

      [UPDATE: The judge at the middle of this case claims that he actually handled the tablets to back up the images supplied by Apple.]

    10. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's not the point. The point that the GP was making was that changing the aspect ratio of an image is something you have to DO, not just forget to do.

      So Apple deliberately misled the court by providing misleading "eveidence" to the court.

      So what if models were used? Everybody looked at Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which may have been accurate models. BUT the picture they were given, and which will be their primary reference once the models are taken away, is misleading. Which is going to be foremost in their minds come decision time? Yep, you guessed it - the picture they have in their hand.

      Very clever, Apple. Wrong, but very, very, clever. And I only thought of it this way because of the fanbois who posted replies about the models (which I didn't know about).

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    11. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Actually no they didn't. They present pictures of both (yes those picture aspects were changed to make them look more familiar) but they also had physical representations of the models in court. The decision wasn't made off the photo's alone.

      Do you have a citation for that?

      Apple themselves stated in the evidence that the Galaxy S was larger in dimensions and the photo in question was just one (I believe it one of the photos on page 28 of the evidence presented). It was the only photo with the 'bad' dimensions. It is believed by legal experts that the photo is actually a prototype photo similar to the mock ups released by Samsung prior to the actual product release showing it was 'thinner' than the iPad.

      http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

      Galaxy S does include “some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions.” This supports the idea that Apple isn’t trying to secretly submit this evidence to the courts. Many have noted a German court’s decision to grant Apple with the original preliminary injunction on the Galaxy tab didn’t take the doctored images into account. In fact, patent expert Florian Mueller noted ”the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s pre-emptive opposition pleading” and also stated “Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple. If Samsung wants to inspire confidence, it has to understand that half the truth is sometimes tantamount to a whole lie.”

      http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/is-apple-faking-evidence-to-crush-the-competition-not-likely.ars

      Müller doubts that the images are outcome-determinative for the case in The Netherlands. "Apple has asserted in its Dutch complaint several technical patents, unrelated to the size of the device, and a Community design that's also about a shape rather than a particular size," he said. Furthermore, Apple clearly noted that there is a size difference between the two devices in its legal filing.

      http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/ http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

      The decision to ban was not made of off a single photo out of a series of photos. Would you, if you were a judge, base your decision off of an image when the relevant piece of hardware can simply be handed to you for inspection?

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246

      [UPDATE: The judge at the middle of this case claims that he actually handled the tablets to back up the images supplied by Apple.]

      So you don't have any citation that they had physical representations in court then.

    12. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2

      What, a curved black rectangle?

      That isnt "design"

    13. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.

      The fanbois seem to think this is "informative". Pictures of eight tablets looking distinctively different from an iPad are apparently not informative.

    14. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by psergiu · · Score: 2

      MediaMarkt sales people (EU electronics store chain) were instructed to sell "Samsung iPads" to the clueless customers. When my non-technie cousin tried to buy a iPad the sales guy told him: "Get the Samsung iPad - it's better, it has flash". The fact that the Galaxy looks a lot like the iPad to the untrained eye, helps a lot with this scam.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    15. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by webmistressrachel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      TROLL? Flaming TROLL?????? I'm sick of the goddamn troll mod. When I'm trolling, I get modded funny or informative. And when I make a well-thought out, positive contribution and explain why I feel I that way I get modded Troll?

      Get stuffed.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    16. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      There is NOTHING unique about the iPad, certainly nothing unique that other manufacturers do. Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.

      Yes, clearly if you use off the shelf batteries your icons will be the same color foreground and background, have the same image and the same color gradient in the background. That's obvious; surely no one at Samsung looked at an iPhone/iPad and copied it without considering the copyright ramifications.

      Seriously though, if you actually read the text of the claims and go through them (here's a link to an analysis of the phone claims) there is a whole lot of very similar design and styling and advertising and packaging that may well be enough to confuse less savvy consumers.

      On top of that there are real, technical patents that Samsung seems to have willfully infringed (like Patent #7,812,828) or the new type of rocker switch used for the volume on both devices (but invented and patented by Apple). Regardless of how you feel about these patents or patents in general, your claim that there is nothing unique about the iPad is both wrong (in terms of patented hardware) and missing a big part of the point. Even if no one element is unique, combining so many of them in the exact same way violates trade dress infringement because it confuses and misleads consumers looking to buy one device into thinking another device is the same thing.

    17. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I haven't read this thread all the way though yet, so apologizes to anyone who has said this already. Samsung has had a device that stores music, video, and pictures since 2006 that looks like an ipad. The Samsung digital photo frame (OK not a real catchy name) is what it was called. Look it up. It looks like what we call a tablet today. How can Samsung be copying Apple when Samsung had a similar looking device out before the ipad? The picture of the 2006 model looks very much like the ipad. If apple is suing on looks (rectangles with rounded corners, the black frame around the screen) maybe Samsung should point to this device as prior art.

    18. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      How can Samsung be copying Apple when Samsung had a similar looking device out before the ipad?

      You might have a point if Apple were suing because Samsung made a similar looking device. Maybe you should read the actual filing so you know what it is you're talking about. The design patents are about many, many elements of appearance all being used in a way that can confuse users. It includes device shape, color, user interface, icons, packaging, and even marketing. On top of that are specific software patents (mapping elliptical regions to capacitive touches) and hardware patents (Apple's new type of rocker switch).

    19. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      You make some valid points. They'd be much more convincing if Apple wasn't out there suing everybody else as the 'creator' and 20-year owner of the 'pinch to zoom' gesture, 'slide to unlock', scroll bounce and others. These have become the de-facto language of touchscreen interaction, and yes, Apple coined many of the 'words'. But word-coiners don't get the right to sue - and for good reason. You can't have a healthy marketplace with lawyers lurking at every turn.

      It's time for the patent office to issue a blanket statement that '...on a phone or tablet' does not turn common use practices into patent-worthy 'inventions'. A picture of a button is still functioning as a button. It's not some new kind of thing. That's precisely why it's so useful - it's an onscreen analog of a common real-world object (invented long ago), so it requires no training to use.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    20. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 2

      They'd be much more convincing if Apple wasn't out there suing everybody else as the 'creator' and 20-year owner of the 'pinch to zoom' gesture...

      Which would be a valid argument if they were, but Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch to zoom". They have a patent on a very specific function where "pinch to zoom" is applied multiple times sequentially on a touchscreen and the first one clues the OS into the fact that other gestures within a preset amount of time are likely to be the same UI input even if the normal algorithm for determining it is a "pinch to zoom" would not have detected it as such. That was a real innovation and it was an innovation that was copied by the Android OS makers without license. If you can find prior art for that, well it would be awesome and an excellent thing for Android going forward. Please do present it.

      I won't go into your other points because I don't feel like doing the research, but YOU should do the research before making these kind of claims in future. Just reading a superficial summary by a magazine looking to get more hits will not result in being informed about a topic. Talking points don't make for understanding an issue.

    21. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by andydread · · Score: 1

      I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this thanks.

    22. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, Apple wants to stop companies building tablets that look very much the same as an iPad.

      If only the iPad didn't look so much like prior Samsung products from 2006... Apple clearly stole the idea from Samsung; Samsung's just building on their prior design language.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Wear the "troll" label as a badge of honor - it means you really caught a lot of fanboys in a position where they have no answer, other than just label "TROLL!"

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      By that right then shouldn't Palm being suing Apple's ass? After all we are talking about a rounded square with cute little icons, that pretty much describes every Palm Pilot I have ever held in my hand.

      But this is pretty much the problem with the whole patents and copyrights mess. they allow shit that is so damned vague you might as well patent 'A thing about some stuff' because frankly there ain't no way in hell anyone is gonna mistake a Galaxy for an iShiny. Android and iOS are about as different as night and day when it comes to feel and people look for the Apple logo, if it has the Apple logo it is considered hip and cool and if it doesn't have the logo it is considered an also ran at best.

      No this is just more proof that Apple without Jobs sucks ass. When Jobs was healthy and in charge he didn't have to pull this lame shit, he would just look down his nose at the other guy and could point out a dozen reasons why it sucked. Hell look up the post interview with Jobs over the "Bill Gates has no taste" comment. The interviewer was laughing his ass off about how Jobs called Gates to apologize about the remark only to follow it up with "But its true Bill, you really have no taste". Jobs couldn't resist speaking his mind even when trying to apologize.

      No I have a feeling we are gonna see more of this shit as the company slowly slides downhill without the man behind the big desk. Just like the last time it'll coast for a couple of years with what they have in the pipe but the dumb moves and bad plays that hurt their rep are already showing up. When you are #1 you don't bring attention to the other guy, especially one that has been channel stuffing because they can't move any real numbers. This reminds me of the Pepsi guy who ended up spending more and more of Apple's time and resources on lawsuits instead of coming out with new ideas and new products. That turned out to not be such a good idea IIRC, and damned near torpedoed the company. Sadly Jobs won't be able to ride in and save them again.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful, not troll. Lots of fruit lovers on slashdot today.

    26. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by tonywong · · Score: 1

      Apple is likely by far more clever than your average poster on /. This is kind of the attention you probably don't want as a vendor. It's not like Samsung is a bit player, in almost every market they are in, they are at or near the top, and they are hyper competitive. You can't turn around in an electronics store and not see a Samsung TV, camera, fridge, washer, phone, etc.

      Apple isn't going to win these lawsuits, it's nearly impossible for design patents to trump infrastructure and basic research patents. Apple will eventually make room for Android tablets and X-OS tablets to come in the marketplace. The question is when will they lose the lawsuits and why would they delay competitors?

      The biggest reason for any company to want a market to themselves temporally is to establish vendor lock-in. This means they want people to buy all the 99 cent games as possible, and possibly $5 and $10 apps as well. By the time Google/Motorola, Samsung, RIM and HP (what's left of them) get to field good tablets/OS/apps it will be much too late. They will have ZERO binary compatibility with iOS games and apps and then no consumer in their right mind would switch from an iOS device when it means needing to repurchase the entire library of software (no matter how much they currently use any of their games or apps).

      It is the same inertia that is keeping Windows going. After decades of dominance, there are a myriad and plethora of utilities/applications/games that developers are loathe to port over to linux/Mac OS and people are less willing to repurchase. In essence the PC market is Microsoft's to lose. Apple is basically wanting to be in that space for tablets and they are deathly afraid of letting Android elbow their way into that space like they're doing in the smartphone market.

      If you look at the F/OSS space, the same thing happened to BSD and Linux. By the time BSD had escaped the legal maneuverings of USL, Linux had captured the hearts and minds of the masses and BSD was an also-ran. Not implying that Linus made USL sue BSD but the results are similar.

      Suing the vendor is the best way to seed FUD in the every user to stay off of a platform. I think Apple will win this one by grinding through the courts long enough to lock in 80% of the market in tablets.

    27. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      There was no reason, other than to try to deceive, to change the aspect ratio of the pictures. They deliberately tried to make them look more similar than they actually are. This case should have been thrown out, and Apple brought up on charges for tampering with evidence.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    28. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      They have a patent on a very specific function where "pinch to zoom" is applied multiple times sequentially on a touchscreen and the first one clues the OS into the fact that other gestures within a preset amount of time are likely to be the same UI input even if the normal algorithm for determining it is a "pinch to zoom" would not have detected it as such.

      Sounds an awful lot like the timer used to distinguish a doubleclick from a second click. Sure, it's a little different, since 'pinch to zoom' detection doesn't depend on hitting a specific screen element. And, not having read the description, I guess I can't speak definitively on its 'inventiveness'. Still, the bit about a 'preset amount of time' makes it sound none too inventive to me. "The user did a pinch to zoom, if it's still really close to when we detected that, assume they're still trying to zoom'. Brilliant. Execpt it's been done before - albeit not in the specific case of the precious pinch to zoom - because pinch to zoom is a new case. Essentially 'since we did pinch to zoom first, we own everything about it' - a good reason not to make it patentable.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    29. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by adona1 · · Score: 1

      If that's so, then that's an issue Apple should take up with MediaMarkt. It's not relevant to the Samsung/Apple case unless Samsung themselves pushed this.

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    30. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      Sounds an awful lot like the timer used to distinguish a doubleclick from a second click. Sure, it's a little different, since 'pinch to zoom' detection doesn't depend on hitting a specific screen element.

      Double click is an interface where there is a time between two actions that determines whether the overall action taken is case A or case B. This is a case of an interface action being used as hinting for subsequent actions in the same timeframe. They are quite different.

      And, not having read the description, I guess I can't speak definitively on its 'inventiveness'.

      Why haven't you read it? I mean if you're going to take the time to post about it and express your opinions to others, you clearly seem invested and are investing time. Is it that forming an opinion from an educated perspective is just too hard so you punt and just take a guess and try to convince others you are correct?

      "The user did a pinch to zoom, if it's still really close to when we detected that, assume they're still trying to zoom'. Brilliant. Execpt it's been done before - albeit not in the specific case of the precious pinch to zoom - because pinch to zoom is a new case.

      Where has it been done before that is similar?

      Essentially 'since we did pinch to zoom first, we own everything about it' - a good reason not to make it patentable.

      And now you're equivocating trying to get back to your previous, well destroyed point. Apple didn't patent what you thought they did. They did patent something where there isn't any known prior art, and Android does infringe. So now you're trying to justify your prejudiced opinions and rationalize why even though Samsung did rip off UI elements and violate patents and Apple isn't suing over spurious patents you still believe they are in the wrong because you feel that way and are making decisions based upon those feelings. It sure is a lot easier than changing your opinions I suppose.

    31. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      On top of that are specific software patents (mapping elliptical regions to capacitive touches) and hardware patents (Apple's new type of rocker switch).

      fingertips are elliptical. changing a circle to an ellipse is a trivial matter of changing the circle's aspect ratio, something that's so obvious even apple's lawyers thought of doing it.

      what exactly is new about this rocker switch that apple got a patent on it? citations? really, i'm curious, because they seem to be confusing progressive refinement of design with actual invention. they are different things, otherwise we could literally re-invent the wheel by simply making it wider or narrower.

    32. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      trivial. these patents would all be invalidated if they were ever tested in a sane court.

      also, how much are you being paid for your comments?

      i say this all the time, but i think it's deceptive if you are being paid, and plain sad if you're shilling for free.

    33. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      If that's so, then that's an issue Apple should take up with MediaMarkt. It's not relevant to the Samsung/Apple case unless Samsung themselves pushed this.

      Either that or they should also sue the forestry commission over the wooden iPad

    34. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by node+3 · · Score: 1

      By that right then shouldn't Palm being suing Apple's ass? After all we are talking about a rounded square with cute little icons, that pretty much describes every Palm Pilot I have ever held in my hand.

      Are you saying an iPad looks just like Palm? Because both look quite different.

      But this is pretty much the problem with the whole patents and copyrights mess. they allow shit that is so damned vague you might as well patent 'A thing about some stuff' because frankly there ain't no way in hell anyone is gonna mistake a Galaxy for an iShiny.

      The Galaxy Tab and some of the Galaxy phones look almost *exactly* like an iPad and iPhone.

      No this is just more proof that Apple without Jobs sucks ass.

      I didn't realize these lawsuits just came out over the past week or so! I was under the impression that they were launched while Jobs was the CEO...

      No I have a feeling we are gonna see more of this shit as the company slowly slides downhill without the man behind the big desk.

      Yeah, right, because Apple is doing so poorly. What planet do you live on?

      Just like the last time it'll coast for a couple of years with what they have in the pipe but the dumb moves and bad plays that hurt their rep are already showing up.

      Wait, are they declining or coasting?

      But this is all nonsense, of course. It's not like you've been praising Apple and Jobs all this time, and only now see some sort of "decline". You've been making these sort of claims for at least over a year now, and this is just the latest excuse to fit your preconceived notions.

      How many times do you have to be wrong before you get a clue that some of your fundamental assumptions are flawed? Apple is flying high, and quarter after quarter they go higher and higher. Yet, for some people, somehow it's always *this current* quarter is the apex of their growth. And they're always wrong. You'd think eventually guys like you would get a clue and maybe actually wait for *ACTUAL* signs of decline before running at the mouth like a raving lunatic.

      Here's a clue for you: there's *ALWAYS* going to be something you can point at to say "look here, this can be a cause or sign of Apple's decline". Always. So if you run around looking for reasons to proclaim Apple's impending doom, you'll find it. But that doesn't mean that they actually *are* in decline. Didn't you ever hear the story of Chicken Little?

    35. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      and UNWANTED by everyone that hasn't bought this tablet!! (and uncopied by any other maker!)

      I'm glad that you're confident enough in your opinion that you can speak for 7+ billion people.

      And people think that Apple is arrogant...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    36. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Why haven't you read it? I mean if you're going to take the time to post about it and express your opinions to others, you clearly seem invested and are investing time. Is it that forming an opinion from an educated perspective is just too hard so you punt and just take a guess and try to convince others you are correct?

      Because one I knew that there was some need to 'hint' the next action depending on the previous when decoding gestures, I could implement the same thing without knowing how Apple did it. That's what's wrong with software patents, they are practically all obvious to implement. What's being patented is the idea, not the implementation. That could possibly be said of some physical patents as well, I suppose, but not in the kind of blanket way it can be said of most software patents.

      There existed a very healthy, competitive marketplace around software development without software patents... and now we have chaos and lawyers and an environment fostered largely by the beneficiaries of a PC revolution in which it's hard to imagine that revolution ever having taken place.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    37. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      Because one I knew that there was some need to 'hint' the next action depending on the previous when decoding gestures, I could implement the same thing without knowing how Apple did it.

      Ahh, but you and no one else knew it obvious that in order to implement pinch to zoom well, that you'd have to use hinting from previous attempts, thus one could just as easily argue that what Apple patented was not the idea of pinch to zoom on a touchscreen but a specific implementation thereof. The courts seem to be buying this interpretation, and it certainly seems just as valid as yours. But then we've wandered far afield from the original topic.

      There existed a very healthy, competitive marketplace around software development without software patents... and now we have chaos and lawyers and an environment fostered largely by the beneficiaries of a PC revolution in which it's hard to imagine that revolution ever having taken place.

      Well, you can certainly argue patents, or classes of patents like software patents are harmful to innovation, that doesn't mean any software company can afford to ignore them. Google has plenty of software patents and they've gone to court over them. But even if you neglect software patents altogether, in this case Samsung seems to have violated real, hardware patents. I guess I don't see how you can still justify your original statements as reasoned.

    38. Re:It just shows how stupid the patent law is. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      trivial. these patents would all be invalidated if they were ever tested in a sane court.

      No sane court would rule a patent granted on a new type of rocker switch was enforceable? What an, umm, novel opinion you have.

      also, how much are you being paid for your comments?

      Nothing. I'm just trying to add some educated and knowledgable, reasoned opinion to the debate. Why how much are you paid for your unsupported nonsense? Were you going to make an offer?

      i say this all the time, but i think it's deceptive if you are being paid, and plain sad if you're shilling for free.

      I say you should be paying people to read your wretched grammar and spelling (not to mention lack of reason). But hey, it's a free country. Sadly one with an under-par educational system. Your writing is funky indeed.

  5. Why the hell are they allowing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple LIED in court about evidence. Nothing screams retarded more than this court allowing this crap to continue given the fact that they outright faked that evidence... TWICE.
    Yeah, TOTALLY by accident, stupid judge(s).

    I hope Apple get destroyed by this, I seriously do.
    While that won't happen, I hope they at least come closer to destruction.
    They deserve every bad thing they can get from this.

    1. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful
    2. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      German courts and laws aren't much better than those of some 3rd world nation. It's all about who you know and who has more clout. Evidence and justice are quite irrelevant.

      There's a reason why the saying "On the high seas and before the court, one's fate is in Gods hand." is very popular here.

    3. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For crying out loud, you're bashing Apple for going back on a promise they made 30 years ago . "Music industry" back then meant selling vinyl records. How is that lying anyway? 30 years passed before they decided to start producing MP3 playback devices in a totally different music and technology landscape.

    4. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lying is deliberately saying something that is untrue.

      A statement can't retrospectively be turned into a lie.
      At the time they said that, they had no intention - and in fact probably couldn't remotely conceive - of entering the music business.
      When the situation changes, they change their minds.

      What do you do?

    5. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is famboi then there is just being a hater.
      What will happen is there going to be some arguements and probably an agreement to share their patents.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by cbope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? How much time has to pass, in your opinion, in order for it NOT to be a lie? Are your wedding vows still valid after 30 years?

    7. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      Are your wedding vows still valid after 30 years?

      Just think, a few years ago you would not have reasonably been able to ask an Apple fanboi this question. Now same-sex marriage is commonplace.

    8. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you owe me a keyboard for that one.

      Very well pulled.

    9. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by rumith · · Score: 1

      "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." -- Steve Jobs [source not specified 13 days]

    10. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by iapetus · · Score: 1

      Enter the music business under a different brand name, so that you're not stepping on someone else's trademark? Come to an agreement with the holder of that trademark?

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    11. Re:Why the hell are they allowing this? by toriver · · Score: 1

      The 50% of marriages that end in divorce before "death do them part" say: not necessarily.

  6. Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Teun · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It would greatly surprise me when Samsung isn't preparing a monumental counter claim to make up for lost revenue.

    Apples claims will not stand up to reality.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need to start now. If the injunction had been considered risky by the judge who issued it, he could have demanded a deposit from apple covering the expected losses. Otherwise, if this goes to trial and Apple loses, Samsung's losses will be covered in the same trial.

    2. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apples claims will not stand up to reality.

      Yet, so far, in numerous courts, around the world, their claims are standing up.

    3. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      It would greatly surprise me when Samsung isn't preparing a monumental counter claim to make up for lost revenue.

      Apples claims will not stand up to reality.

      And who do they sue? The Court? They're the ones that ordered the injunction. Apple didn't get it merely by asking - the court reviewed their filings and Samsung's, held a hearing, and made a decision. Nothing Samsung can sue over there.

    4. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Wovel · · Score: 1

      What does your personal attack have to do with the fact that courts have been ruling in Apples favor? Does your personal attack change the fact that Apple registered a design that looks like exactly like the iPad in the 1990s...

    5. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by advocate_one · · Score: 2
      it is a religion... scientific tests have shown the same regions of the brain become active as those in religious followers when shown objects of their faith

      The neuroscientists ran a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test on an Apple fanatic and discovered that images of the technology company's gadgets lit up the same parts of the brain as images of a deity do for religious people, the report says.

      The first episode of the documentary shows Apple employees "whipped up into some sort of crazy, evangelical frenzy" at the recent opening of an Apple store in London.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    6. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      It's not a personal attack, and it's mostly a joke. If you feel that it's a personal attack, it may be less of a joke than I intended.

    7. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Really? So far, it's been Germany... And that was with a hearing in which Samsung was not present. The Netherlands tossed it, and it's under review in other places - but no one, other than a 2 bit, backwater Court in Germany has issued an injunction.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, so far, in numerous courts, around the world, their claims are standing up.

      You mean the claims based on doctored photographs ?

    9. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by andydread · · Score: 0

      The practices of Apple and its goons bring to mind the practices of Scientology and its goons. Sue sue sue sue sue, Send your thugs to the home of person in suspected possession of missing iPhone to masquerade as police. Deploy goons all over the Internet to spread propoganda about your cause/products and to destroy the credibility of others that criticize said cause/products.

    10. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples claims will not stand up to reality.

      Yet, so far, in numerous courts, around the world, their claims are standing up.

      Apple hasn't won any cases, but will probably lose all of their cases. We know how long it can take for a case to go through the courts, look at SCO.

    11. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not really. They're doing a good job of getting temporary injunctions, particularly when they manage to do it ex-parte, but they're not doing so well once the cases are heard.

    12. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Germany /= numerous courts OR around the world.

    13. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait! Australia isn't a country?? Wow. I must suck at geography...

    14. Re:Counter claim: 3, 2, 1 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How about that no court has rules in Apple's favor yet?

      None of the court cases has been concluded.

      Also, you keep stating that they registered a design in the 90's, but there is no evidence of this, please point us in the direction of this design. As Apple themselves registered the design in 2004, but did not use it until 2009, and Samsung has been using the same design since 2006 (tvs, picture frames, laptops, pretty much all their products). Also, a registered design does not take effect until it is used in the market, as many have reminded you already, please stop lying...it helps your case none.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. Re:epic backfire by EdZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, your link itself explains that Apple sued Samsung first, over "allegedly copying it's products".

  8. Not sure the guilt trip works... by SebZero · · Score: 1

    ...but anything to help it win is welcome.

    The patent disputes are an utter can of worms with the who-copied-who arguments, however the claims of copying design elements are utterly stupid to the point of being insulting. If someone walks into a shop intending to buy an iPad, but walks out with a ** 7.7 inch ** samsung galaxy tablet, there are 2 things that need to happen:

    1) Help needs to be organised - they will probably need help switching the device on, yet alone using it.
    2) Serious questions need to be asked about how such a dimwit managed to get that much money.

    1. Re:Not sure the guilt trip works... by somersault · · Score: 1

      How is anyone who hasn't seen an iPad before to know how big the thing is? I had people asking me if my 5 inch Dell Streak and 7 inch Android 1.x devices were iPads..

      You're right that the whole who-copied-who's design thing is stupid though. For one thing, Samsung has had digital photo-frames with the same gloss-flat-black-with-curved-corners design as an iPad long before the iPad was announced, and second.. how many fucking ways are there to make a "tablet" shape?

      --
      which is totally what she said
  9. Will this bite Apple? by Zouden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if this will end up hurting Apple because it will start people thinking that if Apple is trying tactics like this to stop sales of the Galaxy Tab, then the Galaxy Tab must offer serious competition to the iPad. Apple normally don't resort to legal tactics to stop competitors since they can usually rely on producing a better product.

    The fact that the display booth at IFA was hastily covered up just smells of desperation on Apple's part. Of course it's more complicated than that, but most people won't see it that way. I suspect this battle will just result in bad PR for Apple, and extra publicity for Samsung.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple normally don't resort to legal tactics to stop competitors since they can usually rely on producing a better product.

      Yeah, one that drop calls when you hold it "wrong", that's a better product right there.

    2. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what most apple customers actually believe.

    3. Re:Will this bite Apple? by bjourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doubt it, those of us who value digital openess are already avoiding Apple products like the plague.

    4. Re:Will this bite Apple? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No.
      1. Most consumers don't know and don't care.
      2. Apple is still turning out high quality.
      3. Most consumers feel good about choosing a winner.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital openness like Darwin/Free BSD etc. Mach Kernal, Webkit etc...

      All open and free

      Pick your targets

    6. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better product that is generating huge profit and that never had to be recalled. The call dropping was vastly over exaggerated, and most people except apple bashers know this

    7. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Maybe "digital openness" includes the ability to phisically open the device, replace a part, or install a custom OS on it. And just maybe he was referring to iOS devices.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    8. Re:Will this bite Apple? by igb · · Score: 2

      I wonder if this will end up hurting Apple because it will start people thinking that if Apple is trying tactics like this to stop sales of the Galaxy Tab, then the Galaxy Tab must offer serious competition to the iPad.

      What proportion of the potential iPad market follows technology court cases, forms an opinion on them and then uses that opinion to influence their purchasing decisions? 0.1%? More? You think?

    9. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was referring to 'Apple Products" - may be not

    10. Re:Will this bite Apple? by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most consumers feel good about choosing a winner.

      Thankyou. I've never heard this put quite so well before. You have succinctly defined what it is that I don't like about people who buy Windows or iDevices without ever seriously considering the alternatives.. and why the cycle can perpetuate such godawful products for so long.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Will this bite Apple? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Maybe "digital openness" includes the ability to phisically open the device, replace a part, or install a custom OS on it. And just maybe he was referring to iOS devices.

      That joke's on you - the Samsung tablets are just as closed as Apple products.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    12. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      That joke's on you - the Samsung tablets are just as closed as Apple products.

      Nope, I own just as many Samsung tables as I do Apple products.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    13. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, both of you.

    14. Re:Will this bite Apple? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Doubt it, those of us who value digital openess are already avoiding Apple products like the plague.

      All ten thousand of you (to be charitable). The Apple marketing department is hold all night meetings (they bribed the Starbucks crew to let them stay late). They're shivering in their turtlenecks.

      You are not the Droids they are looking for.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Will this bite Apple? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Nope, I own just as many Samsung tables as I do Apple products.

      And fish generally don't ride bicycles.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Will this bite Apple? by manekineko2 · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's impossible (like all the smug other responders in this thread seem to think) that public opinion could hurt Apple in the long run.

      Microsoft's bad behavior back in the 90's were arguably even more removed from the world of the average consumer than Apple's current behavior. However, given a few years, public opinion among even the average consumer on the street did sour against Microsoft.

      Sure, it wasn't enough to break their monopoly on operating systems, but how much do you think it cost Microsoft to be a not-cool brand? How much do you think it hurt their attempts to break into the phone market, which is overwhemlingly likely to be the operating system market of the future? How much do you think it hurt their attempts to break into the video game market, where they basically had to give away an entire generation of consoles to compete?

      Apple lives and dies on its cool brand factor. If they act like a dick for hard enough and long enough, eventually it might come back to bite them.

    17. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "You have succinctly defined what it is that I don't like about people who buy Windows or iDevices without ever seriously considering the alternatives"

      This kind of reminds me of this kind of customer.

    18. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That video is frighteningly accurate. It seems like every single Apple user I've run into since the days of the original Macintosh have been that clueless and brain dead.

      "bigger GBs" indeed.

    19. Re:Will this bite Apple? by shilly · · Score: 1

      But people soured on Microsoft because they produced crappy products that folks had to use because of their effective monopoly position. Apple will need to produce devices that most consumers feel are crap *and* that most consumers feel they have to use due to no alternatives before they get a crappy reputation. That's conceivable, but a stretch...

    20. Re:Will this bite Apple? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      I like apple stuff. But I wish this would end up hurting them, as it is a lousy way to do business.
      That said, it won't. Most people are obliviously unaware of all this legal wrangling.

    21. Re:Will this bite Apple? by fferreres · · Score: 2

      It's going to hurt them in a much different way, at least to some degree. This trial convinced me that I don't want anything to do with these guys. previously, I was agnostic. I have an iPod Touch, and a G2 iPhone. I preferred the iPhone 4 to the phone I have now, but didn't plan to spend that much on plans, so I opted for an Android device. I also did not like how their restricted the devices to only AT&T, or Telmex in Mexico. I also didn't like the batteries running out. And that I didn't like to have to jailbreak/unlock for things like using a phone I owned with a different carrier in a different country. And I didn't like having to prevent iTunes from autoupdating. And I didn't like iTunes sitting by my computer. I didn't like that if I switched phone brands, all the apple stuff I bought would be gone, even if the code is 90% similar in android or blackberry for thing many games ad apps. Back to the carrier choice limitation, it's not only that I didn't like to have to spend more on a more expensive plan. I didn't like that it made the larger carriers more powerful, hurting the smaller ones through them becoming even smaller, exacerbating the quasi-monopoly the top telcos have. This happened in Mexico for instance. So I was left with almost no other choice (the two alternative companies are bankrupt/almost chapter 11). I also didn't like to chose my telecom carrier due to the handset I wanted to use. I want to switch carriers. That's the only way competition works. If you will not change because you have all your apps, data, etc. in one or two places (carriers), you are accepting a tax on vanity. I didn't want that either. I also didn't like that you cannot replace the battery, use mp3 that you could backup with some other tool, and many many other things. But I could live with that, ultimately

      But when they claim a design patent like the one I read, and when I see they altered the aspect ratio, and when I listen that the competing product (with different ratio, extensive prior art, different size, OS, etc) is banned from a country, then at that point I know I don't want to be associated with that company anymore.

      Why?

      Because I don't entertain the idea of giving money to companies I no longer respect. I think there may be many other people that no longer respect Apple, and many more are realizing that they are genius as making thing simple to use. But the designs, they get from somewhere else. And rewrite history as they please along the way.

      Apple is the "coolest" company to avoid starting today, for me and probably some others as well.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    22. Re:Will this bite Apple? by sjames · · Score: 1

      But people more and more perceive legal stunts as cheating rather than winning. People love to choose a winner, but there's a special venom for winners caught cheating. Perhaps people will start drawing asterisks next to Apple's winning sales figures.

      Samsung couldn't have played it better. Show the product and then create a visual reminder of what Apple is doing through the courts.

    23. Re:Will this bite Apple? by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      The fact that the display booth at IFA was hastily covered up just smells of desperation on Apple's part.

      Are you suggesting that somebody from Apple went round Samsung's booths removing Samsung products?

      I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that Samsung were in any way forced to remove the 7.7 from the trade show. It wasn't for sale, so they weren't in breach of any injunctions. What it sounds like, is that Samsung have realised the publicity value of this whole situation, and removed the 7.7 from the show voluntarily in order to start a media feeding frenzy.

    24. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilariously enough, I've heard this as a voting strategy.

      "Who are you voting for?"

      "Dr. Everclear"

      "Why? I thought he was a Republicrat, and you are a Demican?"

      "Yes, but I think he's going to win."

    25. Re:Will this bite Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called momentum, and it happens in every industry. There is nothing special about Apple or Microsoft.

  10. sigh of relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is exactly i was thinking at-least dust over Samsung settled(http://www.yummyhits.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-still-ban-in-germany/) in positive manner...

  11. Choice decided by courts by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    Well, I for one am reassured, now that courts will be controlling the scope of choice for me, when I go shopping for gadgets.

    The Galaxy is a copy? "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." Humans have been copying others' ideas since the invention of the wheel. What about the violation of the patent: "A Method and Process for Producing Fire by Rubbing Sticks Together" ?

    Hey, let the market decide . . . do you want the real thing with a chic logo . . . ? Or some cheap rip-off . . . ? Check your wallet first.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Choice decided by courts by galaad2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas

      Source: Steve Jobs himself
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    2. Re:Choice decided by courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market did decide. They didn't sell for shit and Samsung was caught buffering their numbers with 'shipped' instead of 'sold'.

    3. Re:Choice decided by courts by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Rules are for other people.

    4. Re:Choice decided by courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:

      Steve Jobs said that Picasso had a saying "good artists copy, great artists steal".

      It sounded he agreed since it follows with "and we have been shameless about stealing great ideas"

    5. Re:Choice decided by courts by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas

      Source: Steve Jobs himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

      Steve Jobs... quoting Pablo Picasso, paraphrasing T.S. Eliot: "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."

    6. Re:Choice decided by courts by Wovel · · Score: 1

      So you freely admit that Samsung stole the design of their tablet. got it. I love these posts fm the android talking points. They scream, sure they are breaking the law, but Steve Jobs said it was a good idea. Of course most of the time younclaim Jobs is an evil moron. That does not stop you from trying to use his words as a justification for Samsungs complete lack of innovation.

    7. Re:Choice decided by courts by X.25 · · Score: 1

      So you freely admit that Samsung stole the design of their tablet. got it. I love these posts fm the android talking points.

      Samsung stole the design from Samsung's digital picture/photo frame?

      Ok, this is an interesting one.

    8. Re:Choice decided by courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas

      Source: Steve Jobs himself
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

      Steve Jobs... quoting Pablo Picasso, paraphrasing T.S. Eliot: "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."

      Someone mod this this guy informative.

  12. Apple != New Microsoft by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

    When I saw Apple starting to make gains I thought it was fantastic. They were finally able to sell their products to the masses, rather than their fans and those who enjoyed paying a premium for their goods.

    When the Apple Stores began to open, I joked to my brother: Hey, look at that - Apple has become the company that Microsoft always wanted to be.

    I got that wrong. They're not the new Microsoft - they're much, much worse than that. They've started to throw their weight around like nothing else, seemingly no longer bothered about whom they hurt along the way. The Financial Times has removed their app from the App Store due to the 30% fee for subscribers and I bet that many more will follow suit soon after.

    Should Apple go on to create their rumoured Apple TV (an actual TV), there will be no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they will find ways to sue LG, Sony, Samsung, Philips, etc. for having something in their TVs that infringe upon some broard, dumb patent (such as the way the volume meter is shown).

    The same would probably also happen to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, should Apple also create their own games console. It would probably go somewhere along the lines of: A device used to wirelessly control the input and display of on screen data and transferrence of feedback to the commanding user. Which would basically be any wireless controller used for gaming that supported force feedback...

    Tasty.

    1. Re:Apple != New Microsoft by theolein · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if Apple wanted to make a TV, BUT, they will face a world of patent lawsuits if they do, because none of the makers of TVs will quickly forget how Apple is currently treating competitors.

      Not only that, but all of them will be watching with eagle eyes for any possible way to return the favour to Apple in any way they can.

    2. Re:Apple != New Microsoft by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Financial times left the app store because theynwant your personal informatio. They pay affiliates a 35% commission on subscriptions... Those affiliates don't even process the credit card transaction. Do you believe Apple should allow them to market their app for free and not get anything in return?

    3. Re:Apple != New Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Financial Times has removed their app from the App Store due to the 30% fee for subscribers and I bet that many more will follow suit soon after.

      ...and because Apple won't hand over the subscriber data including credit card info, that the Financial Times wants to resell as they do their normal subscriber data.

  13. This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    I am vexed, piqued, annoyed, frustrated, exasperated by Apple's behavior! Who do they think they are?

    What can a small man really do to effect [positive] change in Apple's conduct?

    1. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Akira+Norimaki · · Score: 1

      You can start not buying their products, for instance. Apple doesn't make anything you can't live without.

    2. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      You could climb on the shoulders of another small man, hang a large coat over your shoulders and talk in a really deep voice. That might not be enough, but it would be a start.

    3. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Relyx · · Score: 0

      I really wish Slashdot had a Like button :)

    4. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add the to the "evil-companies"-list together with Sony.
      Nothing with the Sony or the Apple-brand finds its way into my home.
      Whenever someone contemplates buying something from them, inform them why they shouldn't.

    5. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good afternoon, dear sir or madam.

      Since you are new here, I would like to inform you that /. has had a moderation system that predates the "like"funvtionality so prevalent in many new social media web sites.

    6. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      You can also recommend to everyone you know that they not buy Apple products, and explain why.

    7. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to add a "get off my lawn", because you will sound like a ranting, bitter old man.

    8. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And buy stock in HP!

      Oh, wait.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:This Apple behavior has become a mental burden by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      If you are actually surprised at all you are living in denial, apple has been sue happy since the fucking early 80's, heck I was watching a 1985 episode of computer chronicles where Gary Kildall was fussing about apple patenting the pull down menu and trying to sue anyone with a menu.

      "I am vexed, piqued, annoyed, frustrated, exasperated by Apple's behavior!"
      Why? this is something apple has been known for since day one, and you encourage it by buying their product! Wake up genius.

  14. New Apple moto by XooRTheWorld · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Apple: Think different, or we will sue you!

  15. Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPad by bonch · · Score: 0, Troll

    Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPad

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-hating that even I can't understand.

  16. On the Engadget Blog... by theolein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was posted there last night, and I was pretty surprised at the anger towards Apple in the comments (The comments there have since degenerated into an Apple Fanboi vs. the rest of the world "ur mom" catfight). But the general tone is clear: Apple could not have done more or better marketing for Samsung's devices. Apple is also royally hurting its own sacred brand with these type of actions, as the perception of Apple as the feisty underdog becomes one of an abusive monopoly similar to the way Microsoft has long been perceived.

    1. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the litigation, Apple have completely lost the plot.

      Having to copy a large document prior to working on it -- to prevent it being overwritten by Lions autosave is the single most stupid design decision I've ever come across.

      Then there's the attempted repackaging of iMovie as an upgrade to a leading NLE solution. Avid MC sales are up 30% and Adobe premiere sales are up too, Apple no longer have an NLE suitable for professional workflow.

      The discontinuation of the server line... let's stop because this list goes on and on.

    2. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Engadget and Slashdot might be a LITTLE bit biased towards geeks who would probably buy a Galaxy Tab over an iPad anyway.

      I really doubt most of Apple's target market cares.

    3. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      Yet, despite the negative reputation, Windows remains the dominant OS. Not saying that this won't cause any harm to Apple, just that the thing that'll cause real damage is if people start looking at the Galaxy as a legitimate replace for the iPad. And to be honest, no matter how good Galaxy is, I think the Apple tablet like Windows have too much momentum for that to happen anytime soon.

    4. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really doubt most of Apple's target market cares.

      I really doubt most of Apple's target market even knows (or would understand the issues if they did know).

    5. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly disagree... half the users on both for the past several years seem to be the apple fanboiiis who suffer with Stockholm syndrome.

    6. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engadget and Slashdot might be a LITTLE bit biased towards geeks who would probably buy a Galaxy Tab over an iPad anyway.

      Engadget's article comments are notorious for cries of pro-Apple bias. It's no secret that you get a lot of Apple fans hanging around. There's a continual Apple product vs other product argument going on there, but like theolein said, recently even a lot of the pro-Apple crowd has started grumbling about the corporation.

    7. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      But all they have to do is try one in the store to realize it is not true. We all see more tab ads on tv then iPad ads. We all have more opportunity to use one in the store. Their sales are still pitiful.

    8. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by theolein · · Score: 1

      I beg you to prove any bias on Engadget against Apple, unless you see reviews of anything other than Apple devices as a bias against Apple. As for biases, I would say you must be new here, were it not for your id, because the rampant Apple fanboi-ism on Slashdot has been a plague for years.

    9. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      I didn't say there was bias AGAINST Apple, I said that Engadget's readership was probably biased towards being geeks. Do I need to prove that to you, or will you stipulate it?

      Geeks probably care a whole lot more about whether the Galaxy Tab is available than anyone else does.

    10. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's not just the litigation, Apple have completely lost the plot.

      Having to copy a large document prior to working on it -- to prevent it being overwritten by Lions autosave is the single most stupid design decision I've ever come across.

      Then there's the attempted repackaging of iMovie as an upgrade to a leading NLE solution. Avid MC sales are up 30% and Adobe premiere sales are up too, Apple no longer have an NLE suitable for professional workflow.

      The discontinuation of the server line... let's stop because this list goes on and on.

      Sorry, no. Apple didn't lose the plot. They may have lost your business but they've discovered that, for every professional user of Final Cut Pro there are 100 (200, some reasonably large number) wannabe prosumer / amateur / whatever users and that they can make more money by catering to them at $299 rather than dealing with cranky pros at $899 or whatever.

      They're going for the money. And the money isn't in professional level programs. Unfortunately for the Mac fans who do professional audio / video / graphics, Apple is going to let them wither on the vine. Which wouldn't bother me all that much (at least Windows 7 is 'OK') except that it leaves us in the clutches of Adobe and Autodesk.

      If you folks think that Apple is evil, well, you haven't seen the pros at work.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Engadget and Slashdot might be a LITTLE bit biased towards geeks who would probably buy a Galaxy Tab over an iPad anyway.

      I really doubt most of Apple's target market cares.

      Not even close! Consider the recent review on Engadget for the Philips GoGear 3 media player. It's a solid product - and so, to have SOMETHING to complain about, Engadget complains about buttons on the bottom, that occupy 25% of the front of the device. Yet you never, ever hear a peep from Engadget about the fact the iPhone's screen is just 65% of the front of the device - smaller than the Philips unit they chide for not having enough screen.

      Engadget is about as pro-Apple a site as you can get...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But all they have to do is try one in the store to realize it is not true. We all see more tab ads on tv then iPad ads. We all have more opportunity to use one in the store. Their sales are still pitiful.

      Pitiful? They're 40% of the market, whittling the iPad down from 94% to 61%, in just 1 year. Sales are actually quite good, if you step outside the Reality Distortion Field...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      Go read my comment more carefully. I said "Engadget and Slashdot might be a LITTLE bit biased towards geeks." And by that I meant their readership is probably geek-enriched.

      No mention of bias towards or against Apple.

    14. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you think that Apple isn't evil, then you're a brainwashed tool.

    15. Re:On the Engadget Blog... by theolein · · Score: 1

      I did and you wrote "... geeks who would probably buy a Galaxy Tab over an iPad anyway".

  17. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Some [...]"

    The Sony Ericsson P800 from 2002 was way more iPhone than anything Apple had dreamt up until then. Apps, full screen touch, full web, smartphone.

  18. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by electrofelix · · Score: 1

    Could just as easily say pre touchscreen and post touchscreen.

  19. Re:Germany should know better by skyride · · Score: 2

    OK, nobody is going to a war just because of some computer being denied sales but the important thing is the trend

    Statistically speaking, I don't think 1 event is a trend.

  20. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's disingenuous. Also before the iPad were things like the Nokia N700 (Maemo) and the SmartQ series (Ubuntu/Wince/Android). The SmartQ devices, in particular, look a lot like the Samsung design, yet predate the iPad by years.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  21. What if it were you? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    First of all, you really do need to read beyond the title of some of these patents in question. When you see "Animated graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof" as a patent title, some people go "OMG, Apple is trying to patent the GUI for a phone!" And while some aspects of such a patent make you think that it is so obvious that it is totally unpatentable, well, the courts will decide that if, repeat if, they are presented with prior art. And so far, those patents haven't been thrown out. So until then, all Apple-haters can do is bitch & moan about the patent system or the court system. No, it ain't perfect but it's all we got and everyone is playing by the same rules.

    Anyway, put yourself in the position of having come up with some clever way of making a part of your newly designed phone stand out from the rest. It may even have some basic component of prior art but the way you've done it is different enough to be noticeable. And people notice it and like it, and your phone starts selling like hot cakes. Are you saying that you should be forced to give that away for nothing?

    Trying to prevent someone from using what you've done isn't stifling innovation, it's encouraging it. It's an incentive to come up with something better. Take a look at Samsung's "Before iPhone/iPad" and "After iPhone/iPad" products here. Where's the innovation?
    http://maypalo.com/2011/08/22/samsung-before-after-iphone-ipad-picture/

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    1. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      As posted above:

      good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas

      Source: Steve Jobs himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

      That notification menu in iOS 5 looks awfully familiar BTW.

    2. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a previous poster pointed out, Samsungs digital picture from from 2006 : http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music

      It's a fucking iPAD!

    3. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And while some aspects of such a patent make you think that it is so obvious that it is totally unpatentable, well, the courts will decide that if, repeat if, they are presented with prior art.

      Interestingly, prior art is not a defense in Germany. That's why the wide majority of patent enforcement suits are brought to the German court in Düsseldorf, which is well known for its patentee friendly rulings.

      Before this court, patents are even enforceable when the alleged patent violater can prove that he did not use the patent, but built everything on prior art.

    4. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, I looked at the picture... So, is the innovation "make it thinner?" Is that something patentable? Does that actually rise to the level of non-obviousness we should be granting patents for? Is the innovation "use a touch screen?" That was done before the iPad. Is it "use a touchscreen AND make it thinner?" Is it make it rectangular? I still don't get what that picture is supposed to convey. I swear, if Apple made an iCar, and it had three wheels and a digital music player, they'd claim that the combination of these two elements is somehow radical, despite three wheeled vehicles and MP3 players in automobiles both existing independently, and the idea of combining them not particularly surprising (I, AC, hereby freely donate this forward looking idea to the Public Domain, in the hope that it can be used in the inevitable Apple v. Whomever case as prior art.) I think it is amusing to note that there WERE Samsung phones before the iPhone, and there WERE Samsung tablets before the iPad, and you conveniently dismiss the more radical fact that Apple copied tons of elements from existing phones and tablets. Having the phone be one piece and fit in your hand - oooh, too bad that wasn't protected, it was so innovative!

      Perhaps the reason I find this so annoying is that, as I write this on an iPad, it strikes me that the characteristics of my Samsung Galaxy phone that I dislike most are the same things I dislike in this iPad. It's hard to hold. The lack of buttons means that when it slips around in my hands, I invariably end up losing 2-5 minutes of arduous data entry because it goes "back" or "home" or "clear" because my fingers stray to some unprotected touch screen element. Data entry is inconvenient to begin with. I almost hope Apple wins, the result will make the Samsung product better. I'll dump this iPad in a second! I already favor the phone when I can tolerate it's smaller screen.

    5. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somewhat agree. I own a Galaxy S2 and I like it. I bought it because it offered pretty much what an iPhone could (plus 4G network access) on a great looking touch screen. This is what I wanted: iPhone-like hardware running Android. Samsung wanted to get this option out to people like me.

      As for copying Apple exactly I don't think this was done. Lets consider the Phone as three separate parts: case, hardware (internal components), and software.

      Case: could be considered similar - but they are different sizes and have different shapes in the back.

      Hardware: *I think* (I'm not even close to a legal expert here, but comments are for opinions right ;) the Galaxy line of products could only be considered copies if they actually copied the layout of components inside the case. Hopefully this was not done and Samsung choose a better location for the antenna.

      Software: Samsung provides some apps - but mostly this is just Android. That's a whole other set of patent bs.

    6. Re:What if it were you? by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      Yes, you should not be able to patent ideas. That is exactly what we're saying.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    7. Re:What if it were you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, technology and miniaturization of components evolves enough that a tablet can shrink to almost the width of the lcd only. What would you do? Still sell tablets 5cm wide, with 4.5cm empty space in them?

      (as if getting the width and weight of a tablet as low as possible is not an obvious evolution step, but a weirdly undesirable property?)

    8. Re:What if it were you? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      All inventions are ideas. All patents are patents on ideas. In other nes, this story is not about any patents. MIT is about a design Apple registered in the 1990s.

    9. Re:What if it were you? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      think it is amusing to note that there WERE Samsung phones before the iPhone, and there WERE Samsung tablets before the iPad, and you conveniently dismiss the more radical fact that Apple copied tons of elements from existing phones and tablets. Having the phone be one piece and fit in your hand - oooh, too bad that wasn't protected, it was so innovative!

      Please mod this up. I am also highly amused by this oversight, and no one seems to ever bring it up.

    10. Re:What if it were you? by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      Lets consider the Phone as three separate parts: case, hardware (internal components), and software. Case: could be considered similar - but they are different sizes and have different shapes in the back.

      Agreed. It is similar enough that some users might be confused, but by itself not enough.

      Hardware: *I think* (I'm not even close to a legal expert here, but comments are for opinions right ;) the Galaxy line of products could only be considered copies if they actually copied the layout of components inside the case. Hopefully this was not done and Samsung choose a better location for the antenna.

      Apple claims Samsung copied Apple's patented new rocker switch (the volume switch), in addition to the design patents.

      Software: Samsung provides some apps - but mostly this is just Android. That's a whole other set of patent bs.

      Samsung is liable for any infringement by Android because Samsung is shipping the device. This is Samsung's legal responsibility. You can't just dismiss these violations because other companies are also using Android. Additionally, Samsung customized the UI such that there was a row of icons along the bottom and about a dozen icons that were very, very similar to those on iOS. On top of that re the specific software patents in Android's interface that are fairly trivial to demonstrate as violations unless those patents can be invalidated by prior art; things like mapping capacitive touches to ellipses and using touch and zoom to hint to the OS that subsequent actions will be the same.

      And then there are some other things you missed from the filing, including similar packaging and marketing. So when you add up the hardware, the case, the software, the packaging, and the marketing, you get what may or may not be a strong design patent case where Samsung is trying to confuse users into thinking their device is what they saw in Apple's ads and what they saw when they saw people using iPads. I mean, seriously, is there any other reason for making icons with the exact same color scheme, gradient, and icon? It's not a matter of Samsung copying Apple exactly (except for the hardware and software patents). For the design patents they just have to be confusingly similar enough, overall such that consumers are misled. The claims of salespeople referring to it as a Samsung iPad doesn't exactly bolster Samsung's case either.

    11. Re:What if it were you? by toriver · · Score: 1

      I guess "no one" includes Samsung's highly paid lawyers. Why is that, do you think?

    12. Re:What if it were you? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      2004 /= 1990s

    13. Re:What if it were you? by sjames · · Score: 1

      They lost benefit of the doubt from me when they tried to assert a one page design patent that looked more like the newspads from 2001 than the modern iPad. Then they added claims for a silhouette of an old phone receiver as a phone icon even though Bell has used a very similar icon well before Apple.

      Trying to claim things like that IS stifling innovation (not to mention being quite hypocritical).

      Until Apple started doing that, I had no hate for them. I wasn't that fond of some of their design trade-offs personally, but live and let live. Then they decided not to let live....

      When the only way to avoid violating such nonsense is to deliberately make something unusable, it is certainly stifling innovation.

  22. Sick of dirty tricks by Teknikal69 · · Score: 1
    I just find it sickening I think the only reason it's Samsung being targeted and not the others is that they were the first to make devices both thinner more powerful and with better screens than anything Apple has brought to the table. As for Apple claiming foul over design similaritys it's their own fault for being so minimalistic and there were a few almost Identical looking tablets before the iPad was on the scene.

    I think it's obvious this isn't even about design it's about not wanting competition on a level playing field.

    1. Re:Sick of dirty tricks by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I just find it sickening I think the only reason it's Samsung being targeted and not the others is that they were the first to make devices both thinner more powerful and with better screens than anything Apple has brought to the table.

      Dont' forget, too, that Samsung is about to (or maybe already has) dethrone Apple as the "Smart Phone king"... They were very close back at the end of June, and based upon growth for Apple and Samsung in the first 6 months of the year, Samsung is probably already selling more smartphones than Apple.

      Samsung is beating Apple in the market that Apple's claimed they own - and Apple has nothing left to stave off the ascent of Samsung except to try to find some legal blocks somewhere in the world to slow them down.

      HTC, coincidentally, is just behind Samsung, and within a few quarters of equaling Apple as well. It's no coincidence that HTC is also being heavily sued by Apple... Apple knows who's beating them, and rather than innovating and improving their products is trying to toss out roadblocks. Probably because Apple is out of ideas. The slavish devotion to "there can be only ONE version of any product solution" is now hamstringing them.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  23. Apple has outdone itself by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 0
    Now, according to Apple's lawyers, if you ever worked for Apple, then your subsequent inventions for other companies may also very well belong to Apple:

    In amongst the ITC court papers in the recent HTC versus Apple spat is an argument which claims that Andy Rubin got inspiration for Android framework while working at Apple, hence infringing an Apple API patent.

    This means that Android started at Apple, just by virtue of the fact that one of its former employees happened to have invented it. If this logic was applied, it would mean that it did not matter where an employee worked in their life all their inventions would be legally owned by the first company they worked for.

    1. Re:Apple has outdone itself by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Now, according [fudzilla.com] to Apple's lawyers, if you ever worked for Apple, then your subsequent inventions for other companies may also very well belong to Apple:

      As so often happens, you are either accidentally or on purpose misrepresenting what is actually happen. In a patent dispute, some company said that Andy Rubin had nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's patent, and Apple then showed that the same Andy Rubin worked directly under the two people who actually received the patent at that time.

      In a patent dispute, _if_ there is infringement then it can be important for the amount of damages whether the infringement was intentional or by accident. If Andy Rubin worked under the two inventors at the time the invention was made, then surely this is relevant. And if Andy Rubin himself took out a patent that had this invention as prior art, and didn't mention the prior art, then the fact that he worked for them would also be relevant.

    2. Re:Apple has outdone itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he was working on the same team that developed the realtime API, which is the patent in question, while employed at Apple.

      http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/apple-cites-039andy-rubin039-anglelawsuit-against-htc_582662.html

      "Android and Mr. Rubin's relevant background does not start, as HTC would like the Commission to believe, with his work at General Magic or Danger in the mid-1990s. In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed. [...] It is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be "highly customizable and expandable" as HTC touts. [...] While Mr. Rubin's inspiration for the Android framework may not be directly relevant to the pending petitions for review, that HTC felt compelled to distort this history is illustrative of the liberties it takes in attacking the ALJ's [initial determination] and the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's findings."

      A fact that HTC happened to leave out of it's evidence when they claimed that Andy Rubin started his career at General Magic. I think anyone, including you, can see the significance of such. Perhaps that is why you left all of the relevant facts out of your statement?

    3. Re:Apple has outdone itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a valid sw+hw patent if they concieved it first. While not disputing their innovation, it's usually a kind of patent that gets used in FRAND type of licensing (in non-Apple world). While Nokia, Motorola etc. were contributing to a common patent pool for licensing, Apple kept it as a weapon for getting injuctions - the tactics was probably prepared already before the launch of the iPhone, as they knew competition would catch-up sooner or later..
      It is clear that Apple isn't interested in cross-licensing, but in declaring Android-based phones illegal in the US (especially if Larry's acquisition of Sun and subsequent patent trolling is a proxy tactic by Apple?).
      Also I will consider them responsible of destroying FRAND type licensing balance in mobile communication industry - don't expect anyone to commit a relevant hardware patent to a FRAND pool again, they become almost useless against patent trolling.

  24. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by X.25 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.designer-daily.com/android-device-design-before-and-after-the-iphone-ipad-18040

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-hating that even I can't understand.

    http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg

  25. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, if visual design is what matters, and not the software (which is different since the iOS is so superior as you would remind us), what do you think about this Samsung digital picture frame from 2006?:
        http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

    Form follows function, which is why every TV and computing device is destined to look the same once a level of miniaturization is reached. That's why you see similar tablets in a 1970s TV show ("The Tomorrow People") and a movie from the 1960s ("2001 a Space Odyssey").

    Apple certainly is a style trendsetter, but really it is more about bringing things to market that are the closest to what the visionaries have already described. There's a rather clear evolution from other mp3 players through to the ipod, iphone, and then ipad. And yes, along the way things came from non-Apple sources too.. the next iphone will have screen dimensions suspiciously like an HTC EVO, and a notification bar straight from Android. That's what happens in competition.

    I'm sorry this conflicts with your worldview that all these nice Apple products were invented in a vacuum.

  26. Apple: trolling justice for decades by mangu · · Score: 1

    Apple is well known for abusing justice with frivolous court actions. No one can complain if people assume Apple to be guilty by default.

    They think they have the monopoly rights to all the concepts they copied from Xerox.

    1. Re:Apple: trolling justice for decades by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      they copied from Xerox.

      I see what you did there...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  27. Re:Germany should know better by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

    it's probably in your brain. move elsehwhere and soon enough you'll find it there, too ^^

  28. Mod parent up by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1, Informative

    The graphic linked to is informative.

  29. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apples community design is from 2004, afaik iirc, it's just a fucking rectangle.

    however, there's prior design art starting from the sixties to a device that's just a rectangle.

    but what do you expect from a company that says that overlapping images on screen are a novel idea.

  30. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did your linked page originally came from realitydistortionfield.com?

    The LG Prada phone was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first announced. Note that this article on the Prada phone is dated before the Iphone was first announced: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/

    Likewise, the Ipad closely resembles prior tablets. Here's the Crunchpad prototype from six months before the Ipad was first announced: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

    Here's the Knight-Ridder concept tablet from 1994 (16 years before the Ipad was first announced): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&feature=player_embedded#at=139

    Sorry fanboys.

  31. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked on that. I'm confident the truth regarding how the Sony Ericsson joint venture was supposed to be the Apple Ericsson one until one of the parties involved shat on the other will come out one day, a deal done just as the P800 was all designed and ready to launch having been designed and built by Ericsson alone. Hint: No-one noticed how the iMac of the day looked like a mini P800?

  32. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say that trends in design that goes on in all parts of every business is something Apple owns an absolute right to do is reaching a new height on Apple fanboism.

    Really, so going flatter with a cleaner surface is an Apple thing? It is something Apple owns the exclusive right to do? Also since Apple did not "invent" this new design (completely stolen from others, such as digital photo frames from... uhm Samsung predating the iPhone and iPad by years... How do they claim right to it? Because they had smarter lawyers who found out that no one patented flat useless squares with smooth surfaces!

  33. Re:Ridiculous by KDR_11k · · Score: 2

    Here in Germany we believe that an unfettered free market is going to be significantly worse for us than the current government.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  34. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by ooshna · · Score: 1

    Thank you finally a comparison that isn't totally bias.

  35. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 0

    http://www.designer-daily.com/android-device-design-before-and-after-the-iphone-ipad-18040

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-hating that even I can't understand.

    http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg

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

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  36. Re:Ridiculous by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    Well, I am HERE in Germany right now, though I don't spend all of my time here and I disagree with you. Only government workers in Germany believe what you believe, I haven't heard anybody who is not a government worker espouse these ideas.

  37. Re:Germany should know better by KDR_11k · · Score: 2

    Letting your whole food production wander off to cheaper workers is a terrible idea for the stability of the country (a trade problem could cause mass starvation and Germany has always been limited in long range trade as our navies could never stand up to more seafaring nations like Britain and France). Just because our farmers need to have enough money to buy TVs and other luxury goods they aren't somehow inefficient money eaters. Everything costs more when made here but that's only cost to the consumer. Our human workers still require the same amount of nutrition for the same actions. Our machinery is the same stuff they're using anywhere else (maybe even more modern and efficient). Our farming practices are set up to keep the ground usable. We don't burn down tropical rainforest just to grab new farmland because our old areas got depleted.

    There are more costs than just the money exchanged at the supermarket. I don't disagree that international trade is heavily exploiting Africa by paying them so little they almost starve and thus pushing them to farm more cash crops and overfarm the land until it's unusable leading to rainforest burning but that's not going to get better by abolishing our own farming.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  38. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's some VERY selective choices of devices...

    --
    No sig today...
  39. Apple has no choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with everything you have said.

    But we're going to see more and more of this because computer technology, software and hardware, has become an easily copied commodity. It has become so complex and relies on so many differing pieces that it is getting increasingly difficult to differentiate between products. That leaves functionality and design as a product differentiator.

    Apple has no choice but to do what they're doing.

    1. Re:Apple has no choice by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . It has become so complex and relies on so many differing pieces that it is getting increasingly difficult to differentiate between products. That leaves functionality and design as a product differentiator.

      That makes no sense. If things are complicated, it's easy to differentiate. It's because the design of a tablet is so simple that all tablets look the same (barring colours, and whether to round off certain edges or not).

      Here's another choice Apple had: not suing other companies for using a shape that was around before the iPad..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  40. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Appropriate name, since you apparently "overlooked" the much bigger issue - that the design was common enough BEFORE the iPad existed that no patent ought to have been allowed. Samsung are 100% in the right here - so they're piggybacking the success of a design Apple helped popularise, that's too bad, if Apple didn't want that to happen they should have come up with a unique design. Hopefully sanity will return to the courts at some point and this will be thrown out.

  41. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by somersault · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to say that the iPhone was the first touchscreen device..?

    --
    which is totally what she said
  42. Re:Germany should know better by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    Who says about abolishing farming in Germany (or France, etc.)? I am talking about subsidies that the businesses are getting from tax payers to keep producing overpriced products, which is basically a bail out, a perpetual stimulus to keep those people occupied in that industry. When you say: "everything costs more when made here but that's only cost to the consumer" - duh. Consumer is the market. Individuals are forced to pay for overpriced products because of the way the tax policy is set up, so instead of allowing the prices to fall by allowing the most efficient allocation of land, labor and capital, you have now a system, that forces prices to be higher while simultaneously creating an artificial imbalance of trade, which does not help the world in the long run and eventually will cause a depression in Germany just as well, as capital will leave (and it is leaving), to places with fewer controls.

    Government grip on economy forces capital flight, creates monopolies and destroys competition, while causing this, "insignificant" from your point of view action of causing higher prices to end consumers.

    So from your POV, having consumers overpay for products they want is insignificant somehow? And that's coming from somebody in a country, that overtaxes the workers to provide insane amounts of welfare to all sorts of people who are not working, because why work? You get almost the same amount of money from welfare as you'd get working in a low paying job, and you'll have to do actual work. And German tax payers are now in a position of having to bail out banks all over Europe, because bankers and government are basically one and the same, so any loss to a banker must be immediately absorbed by the tax payers, and in case of Europe, the tax payers are mostly in Germany (and France), but seriously, I am happy when I am in Switzerland, though that country also subsidizes food production, at least they are not subsidizing an entire continent with tax payer money.

    Who do you think suffers from higher food costs, by the way? The rich? ?

  43. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by somersault · · Score: 1

    Did you even look at 2003?

    --
    which is totally what she said
  44. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by cvtan · · Score: 0

    Only problem is if the exact same product is made by a non-Apple company, (almost) no one will buy it. iStuff sells to a certain audience no matter what it is. This must make other vendors crazy. "Hey look at the new iBarf!" "Oooo, shiny!"

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  45. Apple's Dominance by Fernzie · · Score: 1

    Another demonstration of Apple being a bully and trying to monopolise the tablet market... We live in a free market so let Samsung be!

    1. Re:Apple's Dominance by synergeia · · Score: 1

      Too right! bloody Apple should stop acting like a spoilt brat and drop the patent disputes. i seriously doubt they actually have a leg to stand on.

  46. Re:Ridiculous by risom · · Score: 1

    Are you sure you can speak for 82 million?

  47. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    Interesting. graphic in that it showed the iPad is one in a line of tablets that have been around for about 10 years

    Its not clear if that was the intent of the graphic, however.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  48. Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics

    According to http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2106625/android-market-share-doubles-apple-ios-falls-cent

    "Apple's IOS operating system (OS) has fallen eight per cent in popularity over the last year, while Google's Android OS market share has doubled"

    Apple is a sore little pesky bastard. The iPad tablets they have produced have been around for decades as precursors, and for millennia (or millenniums, if you prefer) as design cues.

    There must be some reason why Samsung decides not to fight back much harder, the initial arguments is on their side. There is a secret agenda or clue somewhere. For now, I have no idea.

    1. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by Wovel · · Score: 2

      Good luck with that. Unfortunately it is based on extrapolations of data even Apple haters know is a load of crap.l

    2. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Android has already made the world safe for smart phones that are not made by Apple.

      No delusion you spout will change that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's based on reality. The trends are unmistakable. Over the last year, iOS is down about 25% in terms of marketshare, and Android is up just a little over 200%. And Android now has a larger marketshare than iOS, and is quickly gaining on the leader, Symbian.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't surprise me if they are looking through their patent portfolio for some patent Apple infringes on, then waiting a little while (say closer to the Christmas season) to pull the same tactic against Apple. By letting the injunction happen, then fighting, they establish that an injunction would be justified against Apple for the same reasons an injunction happened against them. That or they believe that they will be able to counter-sue Apple for more money in regards to lost sales then what they would of gotten in actual sales.

    5. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      There must be some reason why Samsung decides not to fight back much harder, the initial arguments is on their side. There is a secret agenda or clue somewhere. For now, I have no idea.

      My guess is that Samsung will use their manufacturing clout to strike back. Wait until a critical time in the iPad 3/iPhone 5 production cycle and then stop delivering parts. Sure, Samsung will "lose" $6 billion in revenue, and $500 million in profit - but for Apple, it will be catastrophic. Fully 70% of their revenue and profit come from the iPhone and iPad. Having those two product lines stalled for 90-120 days would cripple Apple.

      Stop delivering parts to Apple, and tell Apple they can either back off their insane lawsuits or can go buy parts elsewhere - and see their market and share price destroyed. For Samsung, it would be a minor burp in their revenue and profit - for Apple, it would be a complete destruction.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just what Samsung wants other OEM's to know: we are willing to hold your parts hostage if we are in competition in the marketplace.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Of, if you attack us with bogus patents in multiple jurisdictions - we'll stop selling parts to you until the situation is resolved...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      (insert whiny Apple fanboi voice here)
      But...but...but...nobody's buying the iPhone 4! They're waiting for the new iPhone to come out! Just you wait and see! Apple will be back on top when the iPhone 5 ships!

    9. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1
      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    10. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      You mean two phones--and one of them discounted--that are available on the two largest cellular networks in America are outselling a phone that is available only on the third?

      Color me shocked.

    11. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but, the point being is that Apple isn't panicking necessarily about Android, but rather the idea that their IP is being stolen in order to compete with them.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    12. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      You mean two phones--and one of them discounted--that are available on the two largest cellular networks in America are outselling a phone that is available only on the third?

      Color me shocked.

      No, he means either of the two phones outsell the other phone. As well as any other phone.

      And for extra hurts: together those two outsell all phones by HTC available on all networks and unlocked, Android + WinMobile + dumb combined (at least in the US).

      So much for "(insert whiny Apple fanboi voice here) But...but...but...nobody's buying the iPhone 4!"

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    13. Re:Android market 200% in 12 months, Apple panics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There must be some reason why Samsung decides not to fight back much harder, the initial arguments is on their side. There is a secret agenda or clue somewhere. For now, I have no idea."

      Duh, Samsung is guilty as charged and it would be futile to fight back?

  49. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry about it, haters gotta hate and fanboys can't stand the truth. They'll continue denying the facts until they're dead, it's pointless to argue with blind idiots with fingers stuck in their ears going "la-la-la-lal-la I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la.".

  50. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by ZeRu · · Score: 2

    And those "before iPad" tablets were obviously superior, having functionality put before design.

    --
    If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
  51. Re:Ridiculous by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    There wouldn't be enough government workers in Germany to carry a majority in any election, so apparently this is not the case.

  52. Samsung would never by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2
    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
    1. Re:Samsung would never by esocid · · Score: 1

      They were suing companies selling counterfeit "Samsung" phones and leaking secret documents. That's quite a big leap to comparing that, to this case.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Samsung would never by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      They were suing companies selling counterfeit "Samsung" phones and leaking secret documents. That's quite a big leap to comparing that, to this case.

      They were suing companies because some oftheir phones supposedly looked like some of theirs without saying "Samsung" on it - which is pretty much the claim of Apple. The rest is just chest thumping that makes it even worse than anything Apple would do - where would they get "secret documents" to "leak"? They didn't have any business relation with Samsung - unlike Samsung has with Apple. Quite a leap? Sure, Samsung is much worse. You obviously got the point without getting it.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  53. Apple is a Patent Troll now by ControlsGeek · · Score: 2

    The whole of American Industry is reliant on international manufacturers like Foxconn and millions of good American jobs have been outsourced to places like India, China, Brazil , Korea, Southeast Asia, Russia and the former East European countries. The manufacturing machinery that I built for my former employer has been ripped out and shipped to Poland because of cheaper labor. American companies have no choice but to try to protect its intellectual property or see its standard of living fall to an equilibrium. It may already be too late. If you work in the Software industry their is no reason why your job should be done in a high wage country like U.S.A. or Canada. Their are many hard working programmers and developers in India who work for lower wages. Banking, Law research, Accounting, can all be outsourced. Something to think about on this Labor Day holiday. Strong intellectual property laws are one way to retain the incentive to invest in new ideas going forward. And rethink your attitudes to companies like Rambus who outsource fabs but try to retain rights to their Intellectual property.

    1. Re:Apple is a Patent Troll now by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      Apple has been a patent troll since day one, whats sad is so many people are just now noticing

    2. Re:Apple is a Patent Troll now by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      They were an "underdog" for so long that people forgot what jerks they are.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  54. Re:Germany should know better by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    Who do you think suffers from higher food costs, by the way? The rich? ?

    Didn't you just claim that the food was artificially cheaper in Germany? Could you make up your mind instead of stuff?

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  55. exactly - "they're much, much worse than that" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly - "they're much, much worse than that"

    As the eternal underdogs they have shown it. Read http://isurvived.org/InTheNews/OnTruman.html

    "Truman on Underdogs By WILLIAM SAFIRE"

    to get an understanding on what it means to be considered an underdog, from the 'wrong' [upper dog] perspective"

  56. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by X.25 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

  57. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Are you insane? That looks nothing like an iPhone. It has TWO rectangles (the big outside one and the squashed slightly rounded silvery button thing). The iPhone has a rectangle and a circle.

    Haters gotta hate, I guess.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  58. that is the most roundabout, obfuscated by decora · · Score: 0

    way of calling someone a 'fag' i have ever seen.

    it's like creating the venus de milo in order to make a poop joke.

    i dont know whether to applaud or to throw up in my mouth

    1. Re:that is the most roundabout, obfuscated by adolf · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it seems that the previous respondent threw up on his keyboard.

      If you'd prefer to use your mouth instead of your keyboard, I would suppose that such would be totally appropriate as well.

      But AFAICT, it's just humor. Gays/homosexuals/queers/fags/packers/packees/whatever are no more immune from having possibly-injurious comedy slung about than any other creature on Earth.

  59. or we could have a world-wide labor movement by decora · · Score: 1

    that did not care about 20th century concepts like nationalism (since the corporations have long ago abandoned those ideas)

  60. Off Topic much? by theolein · · Score: 1

    What does that have to do with Apple getting them banned then, unless you claim that it was a waste of Apple's time anyway? You might have noticed that Apple got samsung phones banned in Europe as well and they seem to sell very well.

  61. hypocrisy regardless by decora · · Score: 1

    apple advertised itself as 'open source', and darwin is based off of BSD, windows off of Xerox, the mouse off of Xerox, etc etc etc. apple owes everything it is to other people's work and inventions, and the open intellectual culture of places like Berkeley.

    for it to get all anally draconian about IP law is the height of lunacy. its like watching a building implode its own foundation and expect to go floating off into space.

    1. Re:hypocrisy regardless by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      apple advertised itself as 'open source', and darwin is based off of BSD, windows off of Xerox, the mouse off of Xerox, etc etc etc. apple owes everything it is to other people's work and inventions, and the open intellectual culture of places like Berkeley.

      Apple takes from and gives back to open source as an excellent model for a "good" open source player that understands the benefits of contributing back to areas that are not their core competence. As a contributor myself, I take umbrage with the idea that obeying licenses and in fact going beyond the requirements of the licenses for copyleft works, somehow invalidates one's right to avail oneself of copyright and other intellectual property law.

      for it to get all anally draconian about IP law is the height of lunacy. its like watching a building implode its own foundation and expect to go floating off into space.

      BSD, Apache, GPL, and other copyleft licenses rely upon enforcement of copyright law to work. Utilizing them is supporting copyright law and making use of it, not undermining it.

    2. Re:hypocrisy regardless by toriver · · Score: 1

      So... Microsoft should not charge for Word because it is "based off" WordStar and WordPerfect? Excel should not cost more than VisiCalc since it is just a derivative? Please realize you CAN patent a particular implementation of an idea even if the basic idea already exists.

      I am starting to wonder if not open-source zealots really are as communist as their detractors claim...

  62. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 2

    That's disingenuous. Also before the iPad were things like the Nokia N700 (Maemo) and the SmartQ series (Ubuntu/Wince/Android). The SmartQ devices, in particular, look a lot like the Samsung design, yet predate the iPad by years.

    I think you should read the actual filing. Apple isn't filing suit based upon the fact that the devices look very similar, but upon that fact coupled with the fact that the user interface is also very similar (and in fact violated both trademarks on the art and software patents on the interface), the packaging in very similar, and the hardware uses patented Apple designs. It's all these things in combination that Apple is claiming is misleading users (well and the regular patent claims). It's one thing to have a device that looks sort of like an iPhone or iPad. It's another to do that and design an interface with the same elements right down to cloning a dozen of the icons.

  63. Never used an iPad before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of people haven't used iPads before... especially the average consumer.

  64. Brand and Apple by theolein · · Score: 1

    Apple is much more dependent on brand recognition than Windows ever was. When Facebook campaigns start up against Apple and Apple is perceived as uncool and Windows- or Microsoft-like, Apple will suffer and it doesn't have the world wide installed base that Microsoft does.

  65. Re:Ridiculous by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

    roman:

    Give it a break already. If batshit insane libertarianism was at all a possibility for any human society larger than a bunch of proto monkeys on the Serengeti, somebody would have tried it.

    It's OK to have meaningful relationships with other humans. It really is. Try it sometime.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  66. Article from 2006? by theolein · · Score: 1

    You could have at least found something a bit more actual.

    1. Re:Article from 2006? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      You could have at least found something a bit more actual.

      Well, it would have been silly after 2006 for Samsung to sue people because their phones looked too much like iPhones, no?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  67. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by drolli · · Score: 1

    I am happy to see that an iphone is not at all similar in shape and layout of the buttons to an Sony CLIE PEG-TH55 (to name a very similar device). On palms multiple app screens and a central button to switch on the homescreen was unheard of.

  68. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The article's outrageously biased. Most PalmOS PDAs without keyboards (that was, most of them) had the same basic form as the iPhone - a rectangle with a big screen taking up most of it - going as far back as the late '90s:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/files/10990/0507palm_x600.jpg

    And then they cherry-picked some tablets with handles and ruggedized ones with silly-looking corner bumpers. Most tablets and convertible laptops again had the iPad-like form years before: Big rectangle, screen taking up most of it. See here:

    http://web.siat.ac.cn/~baoquan/img_research/tabletPC.jpg

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  69. They are getting scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    1. Re:They are getting scared by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      First you laugh at them, than they outsell you, then you copy them, then you lose.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    2. Re:They are getting scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that explains why Apple is nothing on the desktop, is nothing on servers and is dying to Android on phones and tablets.

  70. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  71. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the one who is insane. The iPhone looks almost identical to the Prada.

  72. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Too bad the LG Prada pre-existed the iPhone, and Samsung already had an iPad-looking product on the market in 2006. Seems Apple was late to the "looks party" - behind LG and Samsung.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  73. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

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

    Can you perhaps explain, then, why the iPad looks suspiciously like a Samsung media player from 2006, down to the aspect ratio and rounded corners? If anything, it seems that the iPad took inspiration from Samsung's design, and that the Galaxy Tab is simply continuing Samsung's internal design language.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  74. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > First of all: until June 2009 the JooJoo/CrunchPad looked notably different:

    Ok then... let's try the Archos 9. It was released prior to the iPad and was marketed as a "tablet as an oversized PMP".

    Something that looks a lot like a modern TV without the stand just isn't terribly inventive.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  75. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

    An oft-overlooked - but crucial - point of CD filings: you must have your design registered AND start using it for it to be considered 'active'. Just like registered trademarks in the US - they are not considered live and enforceable until you start using them in commerce.

    Was Apple using that design back in 2004? No? When did they start using that design in commerce? Until that date - the design was registered but not enforceable. And like trademarks, others who use your registered design before you start using it are indemnified from infringement issues (it's why you often have small local mom-and-pop stores using "registered names/trademarks" without problem - they were using them before the larger entity registered and/or used the mark).

    Samsung was using that design back in 2006, well before the iPhone existed or the iPad was even announced.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  76. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Well played, good sir! Sarcasm is so oft-overlooked...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  77. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by andydread · · Score: 1

    Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPad

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-hating that even I can't understand.

    You want to know why people are pissed about this and seemingly Apple-hating?. Its primarily because of people like you. You are claiming that the design is unique to Apple and that tablets looked different until the iPad came along. But you fail to acknowledge the obvious prior art What I want to know from you is how is it that its OK for Apple to steal the ideas of others yet no one else can make anything that looks remotely close the the design that Apple stole. Where is the outrage from you about Apple stealing design concepts from others? It is this hypocrisy that gets people bent out of shape leaving you to conclude that people are Apple-haters for not drinking the Apple Koolaid. Its very Scientology like.

  78. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by andydread · · Score: 1

    You mean the design that Apple copied? So in your world its OK for Apple to steal the concepts of others but if anyone makes a design that looks like the concept that Apple stole that's not OK? Wow just WOW.

  79. Re:epic backfire by infinite+jester · · Score: 2

    Um, your link itself explains that Apple sued Samsung first...

    Um, my link itself explains that Apple sued Samsung first in the United States, but that Samsung sued Apple first in Japan and Germany. This article is about the lawsuit that Samsung brought against Apple in Germany.

    --
    i thought, therefore i was...
  80. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I think you should read the actual filing.

    I think you should read the actual post that I replied to.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  81. That did it, I want to buy one, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just waiting for Samsung to start to sell that new tablet, I am going to buy one.
    The iPad I also plan to buy (iOS development) will just wait. I might as well buy a second-hand one just so that Apple doesn't see my money.

  82. Re:epic backfire by andydread · · Score: 1

    From the very first paragraph of the link you posted.

    April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said it sued Apple Inc. claiming patent infringement, a week after the iPhone maker filed a complaint in U.S. federal court alleging the South Korean company copied its products.

    Did you just google "Samsung sue Apple" and posted the first link that you found without reading the article? Wow.

    I don't understand why Apple goons keep scratching and clawing in order to prove an invalid point. Its really drone-like behavior.

  83. Re:Germany should know better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know how pretty much impossible it is to leave comments here now, that my 'karma' was flooded with troll moderations, allowing me to post only 2 comments per day under my name? As to your question: Food is artificially cheaper in Germany via subsidies, but this causes huge resource mis-allocation for Germans, as they subsidize food with high taxes, that's first. Secondly: because food is subsidized by large countries, the costs of food for all other nations are very high, because the countries that are put out of business by the subsidized agriculture would have provided much cheaper food. I had a fool from Norway argue with me here once, he was insisting that his quality of life is excellent, he was spouting nonsense like: who NEEDS lower food prices, with prices being as low as they are today? Well, maybe prices are low for him, in his overtaxed oversubsidized place, but the rest of the world sees very high food prices to the point, where revolutions start because of it and people are forced to eat cow manure, because they have no food to take with their anti-HIV treatments.

  84. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh, given the overwhelming attack on my account with all the "troll" moderations, you won't see much of my name around, because now the account says it only allows me to make 2 posts per 24 hours, so what's the point? You can't have a conversation that way. As to your assertions: 1. USA was a libertarian country, it was formed as a libertarian country and it was thriving as a libertarian country specifically in the 19 century. It became the wealthiest producer, creditor nation, producing cheap high quality goods and providing people with enough freedoms and liberties to try their inventions. So it was tried and it was a huge success. 2. Meaningful relationships with people outside of the family are market relationships. They are extremely meaningful as we all gain from each other's work. 3. USA is coming to a point of no return, where a decision will have to be made: go back to libertarian roots and fix the economy or drown in the swamp of socialism/communism/fascism (whatever the case will be), nationalize the resources, collectivize the farms, control the exchanges, destroy the currency, make everybody poor, don't produce anything of any value to anybody on the planet and live only by exporting raw materials to actual producer nations. You will have no choice very soon but to make one of these 2 choices.

  85. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

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

    Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

    An oft-overlooked - but crucial - point of CD filings: you must have your design registered AND start using it for it to be considered 'active'. Just like registered trademarks in the US - they are not considered live and enforceable until you start using them in commerce.

    Was Apple using that design back in 2004? No? When did they start using that design in commerce? Until that date - the design was registered but not enforceable.

    And that's one reason why Apple didn't sue the JooJoo. So what's Samsung's excuse - that they actually copied the JooJoo, not the iPad? After the CD was enforcable?

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  86. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    You mean the design that Apple copied? So in your world its OK for Apple to steal the concepts of others but if anyone makes a design that looks like the concept that Apple stole that's not OK? Wow just WOW.

    You are of course right - being the first to actually making something work imagined as a mock-up 15 years before is chicken shit. As is all of computing. Including the Knight Riddler tablet - which is just a rip-off of the Dynabook.

    And still, if you look closely you'll see soome differences - and I'm not even talking about the stupid stylus, but rather that the front isn't one flat surface.

    Extra bonus for the guy using an Apple Duo. And an Apple Newton.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  87. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1
    What part of "2004" did you not understand?

    But hey, what can one expect from a guy who thinks a Archos 9 looks just like an iPad but a Galaxy Tab doesn't.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  88. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    And that's one reason why Apple didn't sue the JooJoo. So what's Samsung's excuse - that they actually copied the JooJoo, not the iPad? After the CD was enforcable?

    No, the CD is no longer enforceable against Samsung - because they started using that design before it was enforceable.

    Here's an example. You are a nationwide restaurant called Fanboy Foods. You have a new slogan "Cheap Good Eats". You register that trademark - and it's accepted and granted.

    A year later, my little store, Rooster's Grub, starts using the same slogan - "Cheap Good Eats".

    A year after that you, Fanboy Foods, starts using your registered slogan. Guess what - I can still use the slogan since I was using it in trade before you were - I still have precedent to use it - even though you registered it before my first use. You didn't use the slogan in commerce, and thus you have no priority against my use.

    You can stop and legally prohibit anyone else in the entire US (or in the case of the Apple/Samsung spat, the EU) from using that slogan - and even collect damages against them. But since I was using it before you were using it, you cannot restrict my use now or in the future.

    Same thing with community designs - you can only enforce against people who begin using it AFTER you registered AND used the design in commerce. Doing one or the other does not preclude others from using that same design - you need to do both to have the legal right to prohibit use. Which is why Samsung actually has priority in use of the design - not in registration, but in use. So they're fine from a design standpoint.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  89. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

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

    Can you perhaps explain, then, why the iPad looks suspiciously like a Samsung media player from 2006, down to the aspect ratio and rounded corners? If anything, it seems that the iPad took inspiration from Samsung's design, and that the Galaxy Tab is simply continuing Samsung's internal design language.

    So you accept that Apple had the CD in 2004, but than ignored that and used a PICTURE FRAME as an inspiration? A picture frame that looked like this? And if Samsung thought their design was so damn good it would make a good tablet (if you fixed the backside), why did the next version look like this?

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  90. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You believe that you can speak for 82 million? Very soon these millions will understand where the government is taking them and how they are abused by the system, that only cares about the banks, who are in close ties with the government, so they will keep sucking the money out of the tax payers and keep propping the bankers up.

    What is funny is how this message is found to be so contraversial on this site - message that the system must be fixed by removing government out of business so that business can be removed out of government.

    As to Germans - I am sure they are sick and tired of being made the scape goat for all of the European economic problems, while being the ones footing the bill.

  91. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    And that's one reason why Apple didn't sue the JooJoo. So what's Samsung's excuse - that they actually copied the JooJoo, not the iPad? After the CD was enforcable?

    No, the CD is no longer enforceable against Samsung - because they started using that design before it was enforceable.

    No, they didn't.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  92. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by execthis · · Score: 2

    I want to thank all you guys here on this forum for posting so much relevant and highly interesting information about evolving product designs in the world of consumer electronic products.

    By the way, someone gave me an iPad2 not long ago, but after having it for a while and reading about having to jailbreak it just to install apps I want (like VLC), the way Apple controls their products made me sick and I returned it for a Galaxy Tab 10.1.

    Honestly, I don't see how so many people avidly follow Apple when the company is so clearly the worst offender in terms of restricting use and cornering its users to force them into its own markets. The only explanation I can come up with is that most people are just technologically very inept and terrified of not being spoonfed.

  93. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Thanks for confirming you have zero reading comprehension skills. Read my post above again, and pay attention to the timeline in the example. Now consider the industrial design used by Samsung back in 2006. Sorry, fanboy, but this case is really without merit.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  94. Re:epic backfire by infinite+jester · · Score: 1

    Did you just google "Samsung sue Apple" and posted the first link that you found without reading the article? Wow.

    I read the article, and, unlike you, I comprehended it as well. If you'll notice, the sentence that you quoted and bolded says that Apple filed a complaint in U.S. federal court. The suit that so badly backfired on Samsung was filed by them, against Apple, in Germany.

    --
    i thought, therefore i was...
  95. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    And those "before iPad" tablets were obviously superior, having functionality put before design.

    Of course, that's why they sold so well.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  96. Re:epic backfire by andydread · · Score: 1

    Sorry fail. The insinuation was that Samsung wast the first to file a suit. That is not the case. Apple went on the attack first and the article you linked to shows exactly that.

  97. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by another_twilight · · Score: 1

    Or have a different set of needs and wants to you.

    You are correct. The iPad is less open than many Android devices. Your mistake is in assuming that this is as important to everyone as it is to you. Assuming technical ineptitude says more about your own lack of imagination than it does about the use case of those who purchase Apple products.

  98. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by exomondo · · Score: 1

    WD Elements and then came the Apple TV

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-loving that even I can't understand.

  99. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    The CD covers the whole design - not just the front. Samsung is free to make their tablets look like a dead humpback whale with a flat surface if they want to.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  100. cant wait for ... by ooioioio · · Score: 1

    ... barbra streisands comment on that.

  101. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. There is zero benefit to having an iPad over an Android tablet.

  102. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPad

    To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-hating that even I can't understand.

    It is impossible to hate Apple too much, as here is simply not an infinite amount of hate in the universe.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  103. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    And those "before iPad" tablets were obviously superior, having functionality put before design.

    Of course, that's why they sold so well.

    And Windows is by far the best selling operating system, so it must be superior too.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  104. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The stupid thing is I bet most people would have preferred vanilla Android anyway, rather than Samsung's UI. Of course as a premium brand they would never do that because then their tablet would be no different to the many cheaper alternatives that run Android, except maybe for a few bundles shovelware apps and somewhat better performance.

    I have a Galaxy S and am very happy with it, but if I had known that Google were going to release the Nexus S which is basically the same hardware I'd have got that. No waiting for Samsung branded Android updates. Maybe I should switch to a rooted Nexus S ROM.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  105. Re:Germany should know better by shilly · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously claiming that Norway's rate of personal taxation is a significant cause of developing world starvation? And you were calling him a fool?

    The chain of causation you describe is...erm...tenuous at best. Norway is not part of the EU. The propensity of 5m Norwegians to pay relatively high taxes has no significant impact at all on the price of crops in Nigeria. Things that do affect the price of crops in Nigeria include:
    - price speculation by lightly regulated financial institutions
    - political unrest and corruption in Cairo (yay! score one for the Arab spring)
    - relatively scarce supply due to poor harvests
    and in direct distinction to the point you make:
    - growing demand -- not only are there lots of hungry mouths in Nigeria, but local farmers quite often sell food to agents for the developing world in preference to selling to local residents, in the hope of making more money that way (it doesn't work out well for them very often). A bit less overseas competition for scarce supplies of crops, land, energy and water would tend to be of net benefit, given the paltry foreign exchange receipts the trade earns (especially given how much middle-men take and how agricultural equipment and resources eg fertilisers cause net outflows of money from the developing world)

  106. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    It is this hypocrisy that gets people bent out of shape leaving you to conclude that people are Apple-haters for not drinking the Apple Koolaid. Its very Scientology like.

    Quite. Steve Jobs makes L Ron Hubbard look like a fucking amateur in terms of emptying people's wallets.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  107. Re:Ridiculous by shilly · · Score: 1

    You *really* think that the only "meaningful relationships with people outside of the family are market relationships"?

    I know that lots of Slashdotters make jokes about being geeks with no friends, but this is a whole new level. I think you may be projecting onto the rest of the world....

    It's a shame there's not a "Not half as bright as he thinks he is" moderation, because that's the one I'd choose for you, not troll.

  108. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    "The Tomorrow People"

    Wow, I thought I was the only person in the world who still remembered that show.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  109. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    And those "before iPad" tablets were obviously superior, having functionality put before design.

    Of course, that's why they sold so well.

    And Windows is by far the best selling operating system, so it must be superior too.

    It is, from a certain point of view.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  110. Re:Android devices before and after the iPhone/iPa by tmarsh86 · · Score: 0

    Or have a different set of needs and wants to you. You are correct. The iPad is less open than many Android devices. Your mistake is in assuming that this is as important to everyone as it is to you. Assuming technical ineptitude says more about your own lack of imagination than it does about the use case of those who purchase Apple products.

    Actually, it doesn't.

  111. Geek rage vs. Consumer Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't about iOS vs. Android.

    This is about product design, and Samsung are coming across as product pirates in the mainstream media here in Europe.

    And frankly, having stopped dead in my tracks more than once when passing a phone store that was featuring the newest Samsung something-or-other Apple-lookalike, this makes sense to me.

    They're getting it because they're not some two-day eBay seller whose pirated designs will be untraceable in a week's time. This is the 300-pound gorilla thinking they can get away with dressing up like the other 300-pound gorilla.

  112. Sasung to Partner with Microsoft for tablets by 4phun · · Score: 1

    “Samsung Electronics Co. is preparing to expand its tablet-computer lineup by using a new version of Microsoft Corp.’s Windows software as the South Korean company’s products built around Google Inc.’s Android operating system come under legal attack from Apple Inc.,” Evan Ramstad reports for The Wall Street Journal.

    This will be announced next Tuesday at Windows 8 meeting.

    “‘Samsung at least has to have a double bet rather than relying 100% on Android,’ said Chang Sea-jin, a business professor at National University of Singapore and author of a book on Samsung.

    Google did this to themselves.

    But the absolute best idea floated today is for Apple to announce they were signing up to be an Android partner.
    They would never have to actually produce anything but they would have the same patent rights owned by Google the other partners had planed to use against them. Apple like Samsung would then still be able to freely sue Android manufacturers with out fear.

    BRILLIANT!

  113. Re:Germany should know better by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Those trade barriers established by the EU and member state governments exist precisely to protect local farmers from international competition because they would not be cost-competitive with a desperate farmer in the poorer parts of Africa. While abolishing those systems would not be a direct ban on farming it would eliminate most domestic food production which means the country becomes dependent on international trade for basic survival. It doesn't matter to your economy-only viewpoint but when you add hostile nations to the equation you have a country that's extremely vulnerable to trade embargoes, sea blockades and any other nation-level attack on its trade routes.

    If we were to piss off some e.g. major African nation that nation could intercept our trade routes and leave our population starving. Remember that just because we aren't at war doesn't mean we don't need to worry about it. We aren't at war because we're strong. If we become weak then we become prey for more aggressive nations who want a slice of one of the world's biggest exporters.

    Food is cheap enough for me, I don't give a damn if we could push it down another few percent (most of that money's gonna be swallowed by middlemen anyway) but I do care that we could risk the wellbeing of the entire nation over some stupid ideals.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.