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."
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 did not invent the tablet PC, but they want to ban anyone else from making anything resembling a tablet PC.
Apples claims will not stand up to reality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Lying is one of apple's forte's. Remember the "can we please use the Apple trademark and we promise never to go into the music business"!
Um, your link itself explains that Apple sued Samsung first, over "allegedly copying it's products".
...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"
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?
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!
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.
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?
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...
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.
Apple: Think different, or we will sue you!
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.
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.
Could just as easily say pre touchscreen and post touchscreen.
Statistically speaking, I don't think 1 event is a trend.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you finally a comparison that isn't totally bias.
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.
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.
Yeah, that's some VERY selective choices of devices...
No sig today...
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...
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
. 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
Yeah, you owe me a keyboard for that one.
Very well pulled.
Another demonstration of Apple being a bully and trying to monopolise the tablet market... We live in a free market so let Samsung be!
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." -- Steve Jobs [source not specified 13 days]
Are you sure you can speak for 82 million?
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.
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.
There wouldn't be enough government workers in Germany to carry a majority in any election, so apparently this is not the case.
> 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...
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
You could have at least found something a bit more actual.
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.
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
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...
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.
The 50% of marriages that end in divorce before "death do them part" say: not necessarily.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
First you laugh at them, than they outsell you, then you copy them, then you lose.
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!
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kid-proof tablet..
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.
The design patent is from 2004. NOt really the "mid 90s"
2004 is not mid 90s.
... barbra streisands comment on that.
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
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)
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
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
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.
"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
“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!
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.