Slashdot Mirror
Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia
New submitter harmic writes "The Australian Federal High Court has denied Apple's appeal against the earlier decision that overturned the ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. The Samsung Android based tablets should be in the shops in a matter of days. Apple had attempted to appeal an earlier court ruling overturning the ban."
I'm surprised I've not seen this posted yet, but a few days ago Apple lost control of the iPad trademark in China after a dispute.
http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-loses-trademark-in-china-no-longer-called-ipad-41378/
down here loser pays, they lost with costs.
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.
Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.
Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.
Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.
It's not going so well for Samesung http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/12/french-court-denies-samsung-request-for.html
Nice rewrite of history.
Apple paid for the use of Parc's innovations. They later had "seller's remorse" when they decided they should have asked Apple for more than what they got, but in classic style they didn't see the value in what they had, but felt entitled to try and change the terms of the deal afterwards.
There was no "ripping off" of Parc technology - it was all shared in exchange for money/shares/compensation.
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.
So would you agree with these statements?
PARC was a ripoff of Engelbart's demo at SRI.
Linux is a ripoff of UNIX.
GNOME is a ripoff of Windows.
Because not a single one of those statements is true, but they're equivalent to your bullshit.
You need to get a grip on reality. Nearly everything in computing is an incremental improvement from something else. That doesn't make it an automatic "ripoff". Apple massively improved the desktop metaphor with the Lisa and Mac. They contributed greatly to the advancement of user interfaces. Have you used a Star? Have you used a Lisa? If you had, you would not for a minute claim that the Lisa was a "knockoff". There are graphical elements in the Lisa and Mac that were not created nor used at PARC. Yes, there are some similarities... WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE. There are also elements in the Lisa and Mac that were copied from UI research that existed before the groundbreaking work at PARC. And there are far more elements that were invented by Apple and their employees (Apple employed some of the brightest UI designers on the planet at the time).
This historical rewriting that occurs amongst Apple-haters - that somehow the Lisa/Mac were just "knockoffs" of PARC - not only shows a profound ignorance of PARC, and of Apple, but of computing in general. It paints you as a blinded zealot. Is that what you want to be? Rewriting history doesn't make you cool; it just means you're a nimrod.
Err, no, "X, but ON THE INTERNET" criticisms are directed on base claims of those patents, like "drag-n-drop slider changing program state on reaching one of the ends, but on a touchscreen"