The Prada and the iPhone 4 look almost the same too, as per the link you seem to not how clicked. It's just so amusing seeing some apologist bitching about its antiquated design, when Apple decided to imitate it instead of going with the original iPhone look (though from the front the Prada is very similar to the original iPhone). But the Prada is only one of the things that show that the iPhone design didn't just come out of thin air, the N810 released only a few months after the iPhone is strikingly similar, yet is a clear evolution from the N800. There are many more, but those two are interesting because they show that several companies very developing very similar devices at the time, yet Apple is the one who claims to have come up with it all by themselves and have sole dominion over it.
I doubt judges can just turn off everything they know, kno matter what judicial theory requires. Anyway, I didn't say the judge had to keep up with tech, I speculated (and was upfront about that) that with one who doesn't it would be possible to paint a very skewed picture and furthermore, I speculated that Samsung's lawyers weren't prepared for that particular scenario.
Let's try this with non-mangled formatting
It's not a copy, it's a similar design. Logos are a whole different ballgame, that's why the example doesn't work well.
So what exactly in your eyes makes an Apple tablet different from the Samsung tablet?
Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts. The rest is just Apple being the most well known manufacturer to the general public.
Glass front? Gorilla glass makes this a practical feature to protect against scratches, not a design feature.
Rounded corners? Easier to hold on the corners, doesn't catch as much in bags -- practical, not just design.
Rounded back? Again, easier to slide into a bag/sleeve, not just design.
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you.
And why is it the judges or the laws fault if Samsung is to stupid to point the differences out?
There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I think it might be that Apple convinced a judge who doesn't keep up with tech trends that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way and Samsung's lawyers dropped the ball either due to incompetence, not enough time for preponderation or just not consulting with designers (who could point to earlier products, both tablets and hand-helds, nor engineers, who could have pointed out how much improved technology plays into the design. Instead they went with 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding designs, silly move.
It's not a copy, it's a similar design. Logos are a whole different ballgame.
So what exactly in your eyes makes an Apple tablet different from the Samsung tablet?
Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts.
Glass front? Gorilla glass makes this a practical feature to protect against scratches, not a design feature.
Rounded corners? Easier to hold on the corners, doesn't catch as much in bags -- practical, not just design.
Rounded back? Again, easier to slide into a bag/sleeve, not just design
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you.
There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I suspect that Samsung's lawyers missed the mark and/or didn't consult with the designers and engineers and/or had little time to prep and will do better in the appeal. It seems to me (again, speculation) that Apple convinced the judge that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way, combined with the former -- Samsung's lawyers went to 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding, even though there are clear precursors in actual product, both hand held's and tablets.
You did not talk about the logo, you just talked about the logo. The most recognisable, distinctive and trademark protected part of any branding. How hard is it to get that a generic design is distinguished by details? Apple didn't have to go with a highly minimalist design, OTOH requiring Samsung to be distinctive because they aren't is absurd.
And since you think that somehow is relevant... I give up, how hard is that to get? Wow, I can do it too!
Ah yes, the iPhone 4, a fine example of a Palm/WinCE handheld. Eat crow, eat it all up. LG proved to be a better company than Apple, you can hardly blame them for that.
It's a fucking tablet, it can hardly have a screen without it dominating the front surface, black boarders are so generic it's not even funny. Yes, that is essentially the same as suing for having a screen, among other things. Even the Samsung "tablets" people keep unfairly comparing to have a front dominated by a screen with black boarders.
Did you miss the fact that the logo is nothing alike. Or that plastic is nothing alike matt metal. Or that there are many products that look alike at a glace. Quick, let's compare laptops or monitors.
He looked at it after Apples highly biased finding. But since judges aren't subject to confirming their initial impressions and dismissing contrary evidence unlike us stupid mortals this surely is irrelevant.
so you o and build a mercedes benz that has a star on its front which has a different size?
How could I be so blind, the back clearly has a slightly modifiedApple logo. Indeed, anyone would be confused by the shiny plastic back with near identical logo, why it looks exactly like the matt metal of the iPad.
The community design, not design patent, doesn't cover many features at all, it is just about all it shows, and neither the iPad nor the Tab actually look like it because its much thicker.
Uh . . . you neglect to mention that if Google weren't infringing like their lives depended on it in the first place, no one would have been sued.
Yeah, and if Apple wasn't infringing like their lives depended on it they wouldn't be counter sued. Again, welcome to the patent system, where everyone infringes and only MAD keeps things somewhat sane. Until it doesn't.
Yeah, yeah, and for convenience, let's sign these lists with a set of high level keys and distribute them along the software used to check it. Sounds like a good plan, have you proposed it to browser vendors yet? I'm sure they aren't doing anything remotely like that.
Tell me, how would Anonymous Coward's employees know what to sign? Maybe you could have some sort of infrastructure where people checking requests put the requesters public keys that need to be signed and the people operating the non-networked machine can copy them from there. Something that serves such a purpose would be necessary, a "server" if you will.
What exactly is that relevant to? It's like saying that you can't release BSD licensed code under the GPL. Technically correct, but not relevant to the topic at hand. It's not an issue, which was the actual point of his post, so...
The government might not per se, but I'm sure you'll find people who would be quite a bit more aggressive in their discourse in regards to your actions. I admit I was overreaching there by claiming that the mere lack of acknowledgement is disparaging. But neither does not believing that something is a right prevent disparaging.
I certainly think there is room for both copyleft and non-copyleft FLOSS licenses, even though use cases and balance is arguable. On the other hand accusations of viralness and similar nonsense that implies that developers are lured in to use copyleft code on false promises (of course just to restrict them without any consideration on their part!) is way too common used as arguments for BSD-style licensing, in that way it does indeed enable disparaging of what some of us consider important freedoms, albeit indirectly.
If you find a truly bad bug chances are it will be fixed quickly, if the project is maintained. I've had a patch in less than an hour. The thing is that someone's pet bugs generally don't fall into that category.
Slashdot Mirror
Try Hipmunk.
The Prada and the iPhone 4 look almost the same too, as per the link you seem to not how clicked. It's just so amusing seeing some apologist bitching about its antiquated design, when Apple decided to imitate it instead of going with the original iPhone look (though from the front the Prada is very similar to the original iPhone). But the Prada is only one of the things that show that the iPhone design didn't just come out of thin air, the N810 released only a few months after the iPhone is strikingly similar, yet is a clear evolution from the N800. There are many more, but those two are interesting because they show that several companies very developing very similar devices at the time, yet Apple is the one who claims to have come up with it all by themselves and have sole dominion over it.
Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, now he's in the hands of trademark lawyers, so you still can't put it on the front of the box.
I doubt judges can just turn off everything they know, kno matter what judicial theory requires. Anyway, I didn't say the judge had to keep up with tech, I speculated (and was upfront about that) that with one who doesn't it would be possible to paint a very skewed picture and furthermore, I speculated that Samsung's lawyers weren't prepared for that particular scenario.
Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts. The rest is just Apple being the most well known manufacturer to the general public.
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you.
There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I think it might be that Apple convinced a judge who doesn't keep up with tech trends that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way and Samsung's lawyers dropped the ball either due to incompetence, not enough time for preponderation or just not consulting with designers (who could point to earlier products, both tablets and hand-helds, nor engineers, who could have pointed out how much improved technology plays into the design. Instead they went with 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding designs, silly move.
Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts.
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you. There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I suspect that Samsung's lawyers missed the mark and/or didn't consult with the designers and engineers and/or had little time to prep and will do better in the appeal. It seems to me (again, speculation) that Apple convinced the judge that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way, combined with the former -- Samsung's lawyers went to 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding, even though there are clear precursors in actual product, both hand held's and tablets.
You did not talk about the logo, you just talked about the logo. The most recognisable, distinctive and trademark protected part of any branding. How hard is it to get that a generic design is distinguished by details? Apple didn't have to go with a highly minimalist design, OTOH requiring Samsung to be distinctive because they aren't is absurd. And since you think that somehow is relevant... I give up, how hard is that to get? Wow, I can do it too!
Ah yes, the iPhone 4, a fine example of a Palm/WinCE handheld. Eat crow, eat it all up. LG proved to be a better company than Apple, you can hardly blame them for that.
It's a fucking tablet, it can hardly have a screen without it dominating the front surface, black boarders are so generic it's not even funny. Yes, that is essentially the same as suing for having a screen, among other things. Even the Samsung "tablets" people keep unfairly comparing to have a front dominated by a screen with black boarders.
Did you miss the fact that the logo is nothing alike. Or that plastic is nothing alike matt metal. Or that there are many products that look alike at a glace. Quick, let's compare laptops or monitors.
He looked at it after Apples highly biased finding. But since judges aren't subject to confirming their initial impressions and dismissing contrary evidence unlike us stupid mortals this surely is irrelevant.
How could I be so blind, the back clearly has a slightly modified Apple logo. Indeed, anyone would be confused by the shiny plastic back with near identical logo, why it looks exactly like the matt metal of the iPad.
Ahem...
The community design, not design patent, doesn't cover many features at all, it is just about all it shows, and neither the iPad nor the Tab actually look like it because its much thicker.
Apple doesn't even bother putting their name on the front of the box. Then complain that other boxes look like their generic one. Scum.
The "not forcing someone out of their home" part sounds good, the rest though...
Yeah, and if Apple wasn't infringing like their lives depended on it they wouldn't be counter sued. Again, welcome to the patent system, where everyone infringes and only MAD keeps things somewhat sane. Until it doesn't.
Yeah, yeah, and for convenience, let's sign these lists with a set of high level keys and distribute them along the software used to check it. Sounds like a good plan, have you proposed it to browser vendors yet? I'm sure they aren't doing anything remotely like that.
Tell me, how would Anonymous Coward's employees know what to sign? Maybe you could have some sort of infrastructure where people checking requests put the requesters public keys that need to be signed and the people operating the non-networked machine can copy them from there. Something that serves such a purpose would be necessary, a "server" if you will.
What exactly is that relevant to? It's like saying that you can't release BSD licensed code under the GPL. Technically correct, but not relevant to the topic at hand. It's not an issue, which was the actual point of his post, so...
Public domain is perfectly GPL compatible, where did you get the idea that it wasn't?
Yes, Apple operates in complete design vacuum, not influenced by anyone else.
The government might not per se, but I'm sure you'll find people who would be quite a bit more aggressive in their discourse in regards to your actions. I admit I was overreaching there by claiming that the mere lack of acknowledgement is disparaging. But neither does not believing that something is a right prevent disparaging.
I certainly think there is room for both copyleft and non-copyleft FLOSS licenses, even though use cases and balance is arguable. On the other hand accusations of viralness and similar nonsense that implies that developers are lured in to use copyleft code on false promises (of course just to restrict them without any consideration on their part!) is way too common used as arguments for BSD-style licensing, in that way it does indeed enable disparaging of what some of us consider important freedoms, albeit indirectly.
If you find a truly bad bug chances are it will be fixed quickly, if the project is maintained. I've had a patch in less than an hour. The thing is that someone's pet bugs generally don't fall into that category.
They are the upstream for Unity, contributions go to them in that case.