No, and there are plenty of tablets with "rounded corners" and rectangular shape that Apple does NOT feel violate their design. Samsung, apparently, failed to make its device different enough. Or failed to send good enough lawyers to court to defend themselves. What is more likely?
What do you mean "single-tasking"? Background tasks run fine in iOS 4 and later, but there is none of the frantic "I must find out which app has spawned a thousand threads before my battery runs out" race that Android users suffer, because the multitasking is according to well-defined rules.
So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...
Ask yourself this: If that had ANY relevance, why didn't Samsung argue that IN COURT?
In fact, Samsung should fire their expensive trademark layers and hire the highly knowledgeable Slashdot geek-army who are so adept at dismantling Apple's arguments with panache! They would win! But too late now. Did any of you offer your services to Samsung?
Yes, the first time someone does something, it is an innovation or invention. Afterwards, when the 20/20 vision of hindsight hits people, it is "obvious".
Are you seriously comparing studio props to functioning products? Really? And the myths about the iPhone copying the older Samsung handset have been crushed ages ago, but feel free to have a religious hate for Apple.
They sue one out of half a dozen competitors, which happens to be one of the largest electronics companies in the world, and in effect the "power behind the throne" in South Korea.
It's not like they are trying to crush a small mom-n-pop shop here - Samsung will not "go out of existence" over being blocked in one market like this. And every company comes up with "incremental advances" (e.g. Galaxy S II to S III) for their yearly updates - why single out Apple who just happened to lay the grounds for e.g. the (quickly rewritten from a Blackberry clone) Android and new tablet market?
And your ridiculous fantasies about Jobs are not shared by us who find their products good and therefore buy them from their strengths. But I guess ridicule is all you have to show. Do Apple haters actually believe that there is a Church of Jobs out there?
More of the same cud-chewing ignorance from those that do not get it. Are you arguing there should be only one brand for every product because that is all that is needed, or are you arguing all products of a given type should cost the same? You are making about as much sense as the "if you download Linux you are downloading communism!" crowd.
What "premium for the logo"? We pay "premium" for the aluminum body, the Magsafe power connector, that excellent screen and an OS that is not total shit. Quality is not cheap, and we do not expect it to be.
Envious Dell and HP users should instead try and find out why Dell and HP have been unable to muster the same brand loyalty.
Well, for a luxury product it sells like hotcakes, and generally costs the same as EQUIVALENT build quality PCs.
This is a "Mac is butter, PC is margarine" situation. Apple products seem expensive because Apple do not operate in the low-price segment. Is a Ferrari expensive? Hard to say since they do not have cheap cars to compete with other cheap cars.
Swedes? You do know Sweden and Switzerland are quite a few miles apart yes?
Anyway, maybe you are against a public school system and was home schooled, but in the rest of the world it is seen as an advantage that the children are at school during the day so that their parents are at work. And as you yourself explained, not all knowledge is theoretical - parents do not have a monopoly on imparting non-theoretical knowledge.
Not to mention rich foreigners who move there for tax reasons (earlier, nowadays Cyprus is more suitable). Famous examples include Ivar Kamprad, the I and K in IKEA.
Patents protect the use of an idea for commercial purposes, but their real utility is to spread the ideas so that others can "think different" and come up with their own way of doing the same thing, thus bringing industries forward. Samsung chose not to think different.
You cannot steal ideas, only take part in sharing them. Apple improved on them (e.g. implementing overlapping windows which the Xerox engineers thought impossible) and made actual products. I think you, like many other hatebois, actually believe the myths that Apple have claimed to invent everything they make. But there is no "we invented this" in the sentence "this is our computer that uses a mouse and a GUI".
The robustness of the DARPA-era Internet was based on redundant routing. But redundant capacity in the commercial Internet age is a cost to the companies. Things get centralized until what you have is a series of interconnected points of failure.
If the Government had stayed out of capitalism - by not providing the courts that get abused in disputes, not providing protectionist levies on foreign trade, by not providing the "intellectual property" monopolies - I am sure that Government would not be in the red. But would many industries survive without these crutches?
Envious - or just hateful? Design patents and technology patents are different beasts. But you haters keep ignoring Apple's technology patents as if they do not exist.
Apple are paying for FRAND patents (e.g. to Nokia), and you are lying because you like to.
You CANNOT steal ideas, only take part in their sharing. If I have an idea, and I tell it to you, and you do something with the idea, I still have the idea too.
Are you a believer in the RDF? It, much like Santa Claus, does not exist.
Apple took the ideas of GUI and mouse and actually did something with it, building on what Jobs saw at Xerox. Xerox never really bothered with it since it did not add to their existing copier business, and many frustrated engineers ended up leaving Xerox for Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
No, and there are plenty of tablets with "rounded corners" and rectangular shape that Apple does NOT feel violate their design. Samsung, apparently, failed to make its device different enough. Or failed to send good enough lawyers to court to defend themselves. What is more likely?
What do you mean "single-tasking"? Background tasks run fine in iOS 4 and later, but there is none of the frantic "I must find out which app has spawned a thousand threads before my battery runs out" race that Android users suffer, because the multitasking is according to well-defined rules.
1) Lots of people bought Xooms.
2) Apple did not sue Motoroloa over the Xoom.
Why are you haters blowing this totally out of proportion? You are entering "Google is a branch of the CIA" or "Linux is communism" territory.
So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...
Ask yourself this: If that had ANY relevance, why didn't Samsung argue that IN COURT?
In fact, Samsung should fire their expensive trademark layers and hire the highly knowledgeable Slashdot geek-army who are so adept at dismantling Apple's arguments with panache! They would win! But too late now. Did any of you offer your services to Samsung?
You are unaware of what the T in USPTO stands for?
If you want "bullshit" to be removed from law, change the laws. Dear 6-digit UID who registered AFTER the person you replied to, if that matters.
Yes, the first time someone does something, it is an innovation or invention. Afterwards, when the 20/20 vision of hindsight hits people, it is "obvious".
It's also covered in Steve Wozniak's biography, but I guess to Apple haters he is also a bad person...
Are you seriously comparing studio props to functioning products? Really? And the myths about the iPhone copying the older Samsung handset have been crushed ages ago, but feel free to have a religious hate for Apple.
They sue one out of half a dozen competitors, which happens to be one of the largest electronics companies in the world, and in effect the "power behind the throne" in South Korea.
It's not like they are trying to crush a small mom-n-pop shop here - Samsung will not "go out of existence" over being blocked in one market like this. And every company comes up with "incremental advances" (e.g. Galaxy S II to S III) for their yearly updates - why single out Apple who just happened to lay the grounds for e.g. the (quickly rewritten from a Blackberry clone) Android and new tablet market?
And your ridiculous fantasies about Jobs are not shared by us who find their products good and therefore buy them from their strengths. But I guess ridicule is all you have to show. Do Apple haters actually believe that there is a Church of Jobs out there?
More of the same cud-chewing ignorance from those that do not get it. Are you arguing there should be only one brand for every product because that is all that is needed, or are you arguing all products of a given type should cost the same? You are making about as much sense as the "if you download Linux you are downloading communism!" crowd.
What "premium for the logo"? We pay "premium" for the aluminum body, the Magsafe power connector, that excellent screen and an OS that is not total shit. Quality is not cheap, and we do not expect it to be.
Envious Dell and HP users should instead try and find out why Dell and HP have been unable to muster the same brand loyalty.
Well, for a luxury product it sells like hotcakes, and generally costs the same as EQUIVALENT build quality PCs.
This is a "Mac is butter, PC is margarine" situation. Apple products seem expensive because Apple do not operate in the low-price segment. Is a Ferrari expensive? Hard to say since they do not have cheap cars to compete with other cheap cars.
Swedes? You do know Sweden and Switzerland are quite a few miles apart yes?
Anyway, maybe you are against a public school system and was home schooled, but in the rest of the world it is seen as an advantage that the children are at school during the day so that their parents are at work. And as you yourself explained, not all knowledge is theoretical - parents do not have a monopoly on imparting non-theoretical knowledge.
This is a tech news site.
The word "tech" does not occur in "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
Not to mention rich foreigners who move there for tax reasons (earlier, nowadays Cyprus is more suitable). Famous examples include Ivar Kamprad, the I and K in IKEA.
Patents protect the use of an idea for commercial purposes, but their real utility is to spread the ideas so that others can "think different" and come up with their own way of doing the same thing, thus bringing industries forward. Samsung chose not to think different.
You cannot steal ideas, only take part in sharing them. Apple improved on them (e.g. implementing overlapping windows which the Xerox engineers thought impossible) and made actual products. I think you, like many other hatebois, actually believe the myths that Apple have claimed to invent everything they make. But there is no "we invented this" in the sentence "this is our computer that uses a mouse and a GUI".
So if a company's product kills a person, how do you jail the corporation? Place a guard outside the HQ preventing people from leaving?
The robustness of the DARPA-era Internet was based on redundant routing. But redundant capacity in the commercial Internet age is a cost to the companies. Things get centralized until what you have is a series of interconnected points of failure.
If the Government had stayed out of capitalism - by not providing the courts that get abused in disputes, not providing protectionist levies on foreign trade, by not providing the "intellectual property" monopolies - I am sure that Government would not be in the red. But would many industries survive without these crutches?
Envious - or just hateful? Design patents and technology patents are different beasts. But you haters keep ignoring Apple's technology patents as if they do not exist.
Apple are paying for FRAND patents (e.g. to Nokia), and you are lying because you like to.
You CANNOT steal ideas, only take part in their sharing. If I have an idea, and I tell it to you, and you do something with the idea, I still have the idea too.
Are you a believer in the RDF? It, much like Santa Claus, does not exist.
Apple took the ideas of GUI and mouse and actually did something with it, building on what Jobs saw at Xerox. Xerox never really bothered with it since it did not add to their existing copier business, and many frustrated engineers ended up leaving Xerox for Apple.
How is that in any way bad?