Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.
The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.
With Apple winning almost all of them, Samsung lawyer. It's neither my nor Apple's fault you are to dumb to understand.
The way I see it is that Apple must have serious concerns about the efficacy of Samsung's product to so aggressively stall any attempt for them to enter their market. Samsung really MUST be doing something right, perhaps Apple fear that the Nexus tablet is a better device?
This behavior by Apple is only reinforcing me to want to at least consider alternative products when buying a tablet.
A form of Streisand Effect I guess.
That is the best explanation yet why Samsung slavishly copies Apple's designs - because it makes you guys actually believe Apple fears their products for their "qualities".
Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?
Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.
Ohh, and you may notice that the design is older than Samsung's picture frame.
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?
And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."
So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?
They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads.
No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.
The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?
Let's for a second pretend you are right - then what you are saying is nothing less than that Apple has build the very first functional tablet. Talk about "not innovating".
Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?
Fuck Yes.
There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.
Too bad for your "argument" that fully functional tablets exist that have several, even all those "incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental" elements missing.
"A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
That's clear enough. And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?
So long as we're talking about old tablets, let's pull out the good-old Knight-Ridder Tablet.
There is one tiny problem here - apart from the fact that the Knight-Ridder Tablet wasn't a product, nor a working design prototype. It also misses several of the design characteristics of the iPad, like the flush surface, the curved back - you know, all the stuff that Samsung felt the need to copy and Apple sued over.
The Knight-Ridder was cited in a sane ruling by Judge Koh [businessweek.com].
You are aware that this "insane" ruling is by the same judge?
Ask your self this: Why did Apple's lawyers have to photoshop the picture of the Samsung tablet so they could hold it up in court as 'evidence' of infringement.
Holding up the two devices didn't help Samsung, so don't fucking pretend that the squeezing one of the pictures had any influence in the decision.
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I love how they trot out the "their own lawyers couldn't do it!" argument. What they could not do was tell which one was which, nothing was said about telling them APART. They do not have the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement. Telling them apart is easy. Telling which is which may not be.
If they didn't have " the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement", why they hell couldn't they tell which was which? "Your honor, the right one has a 16:9 aspect ratio, the other is 4.3, but I can't for the hell of it tell which is ours, despite arguing for the whole trial that nobody could confuse the two because they have different aspect ratios." Great argument, there.
Replying to myself, an interesting tidbit, from Linux Journal
The average household income of their readers is $128,000. That's not too bad for an average!
Yeah, those Linux users still reading dead tree magazines - or rather those who are employed by companies wasting their money by subscribing those for them. But what about the other 99% of Linux users?
The NPD Group has reported that Apple is market share at retail store fronts for the first quarter in the U.S. is 66 percent, but only for those PCs costing more than US$1,000. For all PCs, it is 14%.
You used 4 qualifiers (bolded) to find a niche subsegment where Apple performed well. Moreover, your "report" is from 2008, before Windows 7 was released. Since then, Microsoft has sold 600 million copies of Windows 7, whereas Apple estimates only 66 million people use Macs in total. The PC market is fantastically huge, which is what makes it such an appealing target for malware.
First of all: Macs have been outgrowing the rest of the PC market for several quarters now. And number two: why would a "fantastically huge" market be more appealing than one with immensely higher profit?
There is no reason for Apple not to demand that people pay for a "professional" system before they are allowed to write their own programs. Most consumers do not write software, and most of the money Apple is seeing from the App Store and from the general software ecosystem of their iPad/etc.
Okay, I'm not quite sure what the hell your argument is - but no, " most of the money Apple is seeing from the App Store and from the general software ecosystem of their iPad/etc." is obviously wrong - unless you count the hardware as part of "the software economy". Which is dumb. Obviously dumb.
"Geek cred must be constantly watered by the dripping spittle of hate against a gadget company, and refusing to let others (The Sheep!) like what we don't like!"
Which is why half the comments here, and on the last story which will not be named, nearly all of them, were blindly defending Apple, no matter what?
Suuuure, just like you guys keep saying that "half the articles on the main page are about Apple" and that all of them were pushed by Apple marketing. You have a really warped sense of reality - IOW exactly what you ascribe to the "iSheeple".
IIRC, the claim was that Macs were immune to "Windows viruses".
Which is 100% incorrect. If you run bootcamp and get infected then your Mac is not immune.
Well duh. An Apple machine is only a Mac if it's running Mac OS, if it's running Windows it's of course vulnerable to Windows viruses - because its a Windows PC.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you answered to a post way on top of the thread to Kharma whore. And it worked, you whore.
Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.
The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.
With Apple winning almost all of them, Samsung lawyer. It's neither my nor Apple's fault you are to dumb to understand.
PS: No need to sign your posts.
Well, Apple was the first to put them into a design - and to patent them.
The way I see it is that Apple must have serious concerns about the efficacy of Samsung's product to so aggressively stall any attempt for them to enter their market. Samsung really MUST be doing something right, perhaps Apple fear that the Nexus tablet is a better device?
This behavior by Apple is only reinforcing me to want to at least consider alternative products when buying a tablet.
A form of Streisand Effect I guess.
That is the best explanation yet why Samsung slavishly copies Apple's designs - because it makes you guys actually believe Apple fears their products for their "qualities".
Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?
Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.
Ohh, and you may notice that the design is older than Samsung's picture frame.
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?
And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."
So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?
That's clear enough.
No, that's just the definition of a design patent.
Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.Thanks for admitting defeat.
No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.
The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?
Let's for a second pretend you are right - then what you are saying is nothing less than that Apple has build the very first functional tablet. Talk about "not innovating".
Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?
Fuck Yes.
There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.
Too bad for your "argument" that fully functional tablets exist that have several, even all those "incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental" elements missing.
Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.
Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Protections
"A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
That's clear enough. And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?
So that's why there's an iPad on the Discovery in the movie 2001 made in 1969!
Oh boy. http://obamapacman.com/2011/08/debunked-samsung-2001-space-odyssey-as-ipad-prior-art-analysis/
Anybody still claiming that has swallowed Samsungs Fool-Aid to the last drop. Especially when they also babble on about "rounded corners".
>...
So long as we're talking about old tablets, let's pull out the good-old Knight-Ridder Tablet.
There is one tiny problem here - apart from the fact that the Knight-Ridder Tablet wasn't a product, nor a working design prototype. It also misses several of the design characteristics of the iPad, like the flush surface, the curved back - you know, all the stuff that Samsung felt the need to copy and Apple sued over.
The Knight-Ridder was cited in a sane ruling by Judge Koh [businessweek.com].
You are aware that this "insane" ruling is by the same judge?
Ask your self this: Why did Apple's lawyers have to photoshop the picture of the Samsung tablet so they could hold it up in court as 'evidence' of infringement.
Holding up the two devices didn't help Samsung, so don't fucking pretend that the squeezing one of the pictures had any influence in the decision.
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?
I love how they trot out the "their own lawyers couldn't do it!" argument. What they could not do was tell which one was which, nothing was said about telling them APART. They do not have the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement. Telling them apart is easy. Telling which is which may not be.
If they didn't have " the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement", why they hell couldn't they tell which was which? "Your honor, the right one has a 16:9 aspect ratio, the other is 4.3, but I can't for the hell of it tell which is ours, despite arguing for the whole trial that nobody could confuse the two because they have different aspect ratios." Great argument, there.
Replying to myself, an interesting tidbit, from Linux Journal
The average household income of their readers is $128,000. That's not too bad for an average!
Yeah, those Linux users still reading dead tree magazines - or rather those who are employed by companies wasting their money by subscribing those for them. But what about the other 99% of Linux users?
Expect him to not ignore himself.
So this is why Apple is backing off on their claims of virus immunity. NFC is a big target.
Oh, the good old days when people simply wrote "First Post!" instead of some nonsense that sounds like it could be on topic.
The NPD Group has reported that Apple is market share at retail store fronts for the first quarter in the U.S. is 66 percent, but only for those PCs costing more than US$1,000. For all PCs, it is 14%.
You used 4 qualifiers (bolded) to find a niche subsegment where Apple performed well. Moreover, your "report" is from 2008, before Windows 7 was released. Since then, Microsoft has sold 600 million copies of Windows 7, whereas Apple estimates only 66 million people use Macs in total. The PC market is fantastically huge, which is what makes it such an appealing target for malware.
First of all: Macs have been outgrowing the rest of the PC market for several quarters now. And number two: why would a "fantastically huge" market be more appealing than one with immensely higher profit?
XCode runs on all Macs from Mini to MacPro
There is no reason for Apple not to demand that people pay for a "professional" system before they are allowed to write their own programs. Most consumers do not write software, and most of the money Apple is seeing from the App Store and from the general software ecosystem of their iPad/etc.
Okay, I'm not quite sure what the hell your argument is - but no, " most of the money Apple is seeing from the App Store and from the general software ecosystem of their iPad/etc." is obviously wrong - unless you count the hardware as part of "the software economy". Which is dumb. Obviously dumb.
Apple's OS is a lot of things, but it's still Unix based. If I want to do something, a terminal window is a click away
For now; I have been saying this for a long time,
So the fact that you have been wrong for a long time is proof that you are right.
In Apple marketing land, a PC is a Windows box.
In other words, Apple marketing people are completely disconnected from reality?
IOW Apple marketing makes fun of the morons that kept insisting that Macs aren't PCs.
"Geek cred must be constantly watered by the dripping spittle of hate against a gadget company, and refusing to let others (The Sheep!) like what we don't like!" Which is why half the comments here, and on the last story which will not be named, nearly all of them, were blindly defending Apple, no matter what?
Suuuure, just like you guys keep saying that "half the articles on the main page are about Apple" and that all of them were pushed by Apple marketing. You have a really warped sense of reality - IOW exactly what you ascribe to the "iSheeple".
IIRC, the claim was that Macs were immune to "Windows viruses".
Which is 100% incorrect. If you run bootcamp and get infected then your Mac is not immune.
Well duh. An Apple machine is only a Mac if it's running Mac OS, if it's running Windows it's of course vulnerable to Windows viruses - because its a Windows PC.
Yes, and Windows is immune to Mac security bugs.
Good thing they still have more than enough for themselves.