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."
_ there was only one.
pulled its latest Galaxy tablet from the IFA trade show in Berlin
Just as an Apple fanboi pulled his dick out of his bum-chum's arse.
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).
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.
Apple did not invent the tablet PC, but they want to ban anyone else from making anything resembling a tablet PC.
Apple hater circle jerk in one, two, ...
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.
Samsung filed this suit against Apple, not the other way around. How weak must their case be that after suing Apple, the judge rules that Samsung's own products be pulled from the shelves?
Samsung Electronics Counter Sues Apple as Patent Row Deepens
i thought, therefore i was...
Apples claims will not stand up to reality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
...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.
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"
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...
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!
It's ridiculous how a government court helps to destroy competition, government system is set up to create monopolies via all these "intellectual property" laws, and how at the end the CONSUMERS suffer due to fewer choices and higher prices.
When the revolt takes place against the banking system, it should also take upon the government destroying free market system. This does not help anybody but Apple in this case, and who cares? The consumers suffer, Apple should not even be on the radar of thinking for these so called 'socialist governments'.
You can't handle the truth.
Germany should know better, but it clearly doesn't remember its own history even though it's still paying for it.
The economic sanctions imposed by the French and British against Germany, the entire 'reparations' idea basically caused so much harm to Germany economy, that it became politically weak and allowed we know who to come to power and thus WWII became inevitable.
Any trade restrictions are similar to such sanctions. This kinds of stuff leads to wars. OK, nobody is going to a war just because of some computer being denied sales but the important thing is the trend. If Germany keeps doing this shit - basically preventing trade from taking place and thus causing harm to all parties involved - the consumers and the producers, eventually this will result in a war. It won't be because of computers, but it may just well be because of food, energy, water sale restrictions, and this here sets more and more precedents for such sanctions.
Wars are always about economics, it's always about making somebody too poor while somebody else gaining from it, and eventually these imbalances result in some form of armed conflict.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
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?
Apple: Think different, or we will sue you!
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.
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.
"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.
Could just as easily say pre touchscreen and post touchscreen.
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
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.
I think it's obvious this isn't even about design it's about not wanting competition on a level playing field.
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
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.
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.
The graphic linked to is informative.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Thank you finally a comparison that isn't totally bias.
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.
Yeah, that's some VERY selective choices of devices...
No sig today...
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.
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.
Are you trying to say that the iPhone was the first touchscreen device..?
which is totally what she said
Did you even look at 2003?
which is totally what she said
anything can stagn$ant. As Linux
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.
Another demonstration of Apple being a bully and trying to monopolise the tablet market... We live in a free market so let Samsung be!
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
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.
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.".
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.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4058472/Samsung-set-to-sue-Asian-phone-makers-says-report
Fandroids hate facts.
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.
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"
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...
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!
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
that did not care about 20th century concepts like nationalism (since the corporations have long ago abandoned those ideas)
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.
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.
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.
Lots of people haven't used iPads before... especially the average consumer.
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.
You could have at least found something a bit more actual.
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.
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
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
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.
You're the one who is insane. The iPhone looks almost identical to the Prada.
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!
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!
> 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.
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!
Well played, good sir! Sarcasm is so oft-overlooked...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
... barbra streisands comment on that.
Wrong. There is zero benefit to having an iPad over an Android tablet.
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
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
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
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
"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.
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
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.
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.
“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!