Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Dec 2011 23:41 UTC
The CrunchPad (and its eventual consumer incarnation the JooJoo) is often presented as proof of obviousness in the iPad's design. For the first time, we have an interesting insider view on this matter - Nik Cubrilovic was involved with Micheal Arrington's CrunchPad project from the very beginning, and has written a lengthy blog post about how the CrunchPad really is proof the iPad's design was obvious.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-07
Member since:
2010-03-19
Evolutionary ideas are not unique: http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea-time-c...
RE: Comment by Licaon_Kter
by bnolsen on Sat 10th Dec 2011 01:30 UTC
in reply to "Comment by Licaon_Kter"
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2006-05-06
Long before Apple's iPhone and iPad saw the light of day, I saw plenty of people describing what the though apple should make on fan sites. There were some that suggested very similar things to what Apple made.
That said... putting it all together in the right way at the right time is really what made made the difference. An original idea is not enough on its own with out the right timing and execution.
Member since:2006-01-06
Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first., initially grabbing a lion's share. The problem is that Apple doesn't want to have to compete in an open market with increasing competitors so they are trying to close it down.
Edited 2011-12-10 04:08 UTC
RE[2]: Comment by redshift
by tupp on Sat 10th Dec 2011 18:25 UTC
in reply to "RE: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2006-11-12
RE[3]: Comment by redshift
by MOS6510 on Sat 10th Dec 2011 22:33 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2011-05-12
RE[4]: Comment by redshift
by tupp on Sat 10th Dec 2011 22:49 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2006-11-12
Well, he did say compelling product. The Joojoo was anything but, unlike the iPad.
The JooJoo preceded the Ipad to market and it had rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, just like the Ipad later had.
What exactly do you mean by compelling? Exactly what was not compelling on the JooJoo that was compelling on the Ipad?
RE[5]: Comment by redshift
by MOS6510 on Sat 10th Dec 2011 23:51 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2011-05-12
RE[6]: Comment by redshift
by tupp on Sun 11th Dec 2011 00:19 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2006-11-12
RE[7]: Comment by redshift
by MOS6510 on Sun 11th Dec 2011 06:29 UTC
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2011-05-12
RE[7]: Comment by redshift
by brichpmr on Sun 11th Dec 2011 12:44 UTC
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2006-04-22
"Bnolsen said Apple brought the first compelling tablet to market. You said the Joojoo came before it. I think it's pretty obvious the Joojoo wasn't a compelling product, like all pre-iPad tablets.
As I figured, your statement was based on assumption, not fact. "
You could aim a cruise missile at a crowd at the World Cup and be hard pressed to hit anyone who knew what the hell a joojoo was...let alone ever purchased one.
RE[6]: Comment by redshift
by Laurence on Sun 11th Dec 2011 13:22 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2007-03-26
RE[7]: Comment by redshift
by MOS6510 on Sun 11th Dec 2011 13:30 UTC
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2011-05-12
compelling |kəmˈpeliNG|
adjective
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way: his eyes were strangely compelling | a compelling film.
If you only sell 64 units I can't see how you could call the JooJoo "compelling". It was dwarfed in sales and media attention by the iPad.
RE[2]: Comment by redshift
by tomcat on Tue 13th Dec 2011 00:45 UTC
in reply to "RE: Comment by redshift"
Member since:2006-01-06
Apple proved your point by bringing a compelling product to market first., initially grabbing a lion's share. The problem is that Apple doesn't want to have to compete in an open market with increasing competitors so they are trying to close it down.
Well, on the one hand, you can see why. They lost the desktop market to clones. But, on the other, you have to realize that the iPad is nothing more than an integration of a variety of technologies that have been around in separate forms for the past couple decades. The design patterns aren't going to hold up. There's too much prior art and independent thinking to prevail on that. What Apple really wants is to just slow down competitors until its products reach a PC-like critical mass, where customers have become dependent on its application ecosystem and it has a lock.
That's not going to happen, though. First, there's nothing inherently special about iOS. Nor are the applications. There are no platform-exclusive applications that require the iPad. Most popular applications are available everywhere. The economics actually *encourage* developers to develop for multiple platforms. Second, Apple's competition is going to beat them on price, and the supposed differences in quality aren't going to matter. We're reaching a point where "good enough" will be able drive a market of hundreds of millions of units. Android is proof enough of that.
Member since:
2008-08-26
RE: If it was so obvious...
by ichi on Sat 10th Dec 2011 21:21 UTC
in reply to "If it was so obvious..."
Member since:2007-03-06
Why didn't Samsung, Microsoft, Joo Joo et al do it first and do it right?
Crunchpad did it first. Whether it did it right or not is irrelevant since Apple isn't suing around for the differentiating bits that made their product successful, but for design features that where right there in previous products (form factor, rounded corners, etc...).
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Apple is blatant in their abuse of multiple patent systems.
MS is sneakier about it and uses patents as one of many tools to get leverage on its competitors, and keeps this stuff under the table. B&N is a case where MS has no leverage and that went public.
MS is sneakier about it and uses patents as one of many tools to get leverage on its competitors, and keeps this stuff under the table. B&N is a case where MS has no leverage and that went public.
? Everyone knows that:
HTC pays MS
Samsung pays MS
Amazon pays MS
Tom Tom pays MS
Etc, etc.
Only difference is that MS chooses to make direct money off its patents instead of protecting them for their products. Maybe Apple should of taken that route.
Almost every company Apple is beefing with so is MS.
Member since:2006-11-12
Thought this was OSnews? Now it's become the bash apple site. Microsoft is doing the same stuff and has been for years and yet no bashing there (but for me). But Apple? Bash, bash, bash.
The criticism of Apple does not constitute "bashing" as long it is true.
Microsoft has done a lot of bad "stuff," too, and its underhanded tactics are almost always criticized in this forum.
However, the Microsoft "stuff" is not the same as the Apple "stuff." Microsoft is more sinister and devious, while Apple (and its fanboy legion) is mostly just deluded. Lately, Apple has started a lot of oppressive legal action based on its delusions.
Ask not whether the criticism of Apple constitutes "bashing" -- ask if it is true.
Member since:2005-11-10
"Thought this was OSnews? Now it's become the bash apple site. Microsoft is doing the same stuff and has been for years and yet no bashing there (but for me). But Apple? Bash, bash, bash.
The criticism of Apple does not constitute "bashing" as long it is true.
Microsoft has done a lot of bad "stuff," too, and its underhanded tactics are almost always criticized in this forum.
However, the Microsoft "stuff" is not the same as the Apple "stuff." Microsoft is more sinister and devious, while Apple (and its fanboy legion) is mostly just deluded. Lately, Apple has started a lot of oppressive legal action based on its delusions.
Ask not whether the criticism of Apple constitutes "bashing" -- ask if it is true. "
The question of true is a matter of opinion. If you take the same story to an Apple shareholder I am SURE they would not spin the story in a bad light wether its true or not.
The fact of Apple doing something like suing a company does not mean Apple is evil. My point of saying "bashing" is from the point of view of everything that is now posted on this site about Apple is spun (or posted) as negative.
Member since:2006-11-12
The question of true is a matter of opinion.
No. Not really.
The design of the Ipad has appeared in prior art for over for decades. That fact has been established countless times on this forum, and the fact is that Apple did not invent the rounded-cornered, shiny-black-flush-bezeled configuration.
Not only has extensive prior art for the design thoroughly been established, but the design is so obvious, that it appeared as a prop in a blockbuster film in 1968 (eight years before Apple computer even existed) and it appeared as a mock-up in a video by a publishing company.
So, there can be no question that Apple did not originate the tablet design for the Ipad. Apple have no claim to such a design and it should not have received a patent for it.
Just because Apple's lawyers (and fanboys) deny this fact it does not mean that such truth is "relative."
If you take the same story to an Apple shareholder I am SURE they would not spin the story in a bad light wether its true or not.
Of course. The RDF affects shareholders, too.
The fact of Apple doing something like suing a company does not mean Apple is evil.
Apple is wrong to sue others as if it is the originator of the Ipad design.
My point of saying "bashing" is from the point of view of everything that is now posted on this site about Apple is spun (or posted) as negative.
It's not "bashing" if the criticism is (currently) valid.
Member since:2005-11-10
No. Not really.
The design of the Ipad has appeared in prior art for over for decades. That fact has been established countless times on this forum, and the fact is that Apple did not invent the rounded-cornered, shiny-black-flush-bezeled configuration.
Not only has extensive prior art for the design thoroughly been established, but the design is so obvious, that it appeared as a prop in a blockbuster film in 1968 (eight years before Apple computer even existed) and it appeared as a mock-up in a video by a publishing company.
So, there can be no question that Apple did not originate the tablet design for the Ipad. Apple have no claim to such a design and it should not have received a patent for it.
Just because Apple's lawyers (and fanboys) deny this fact it does not mean that such truth is "relative."
Not only has extensive prior art for the design thoroughly been established, but the design is so obvious, that it appeared as a prop in a blockbuster film in 1968 (eight years before Apple computer even existed) and it appeared as a mock-up in a video by a publishing company.
So, there can be no question that Apple did not originate the tablet design for the Ipad. Apple have no claim to such a design and it should not have received a patent for it.
Just because Apple's lawyers (and fanboys) deny this fact it does not mean that such truth is "relative."
Of course. The RDF affects shareholders, too.
Apple is wrong to sue others as if it is the originator of the Ipad design.
It's not "bashing" if the criticism is (currently) valid.
Interesting. You say there is prior art in a blockbuster movie (I am assuming like Samsung tried to say was 2001: A Space Odyssey) I am assuming that you have never watched the movie because there is no tablet in the movie. I see you have fallen for the RDF that Sammy is putting out.
Also you can't claim that Apple is a BAD company because no one else took the time to actually file a patent for something they already made if they made it to be what Apple has made it to be. A tablet to be used like the iPad is. Any company before Apple could of done it but didn't. Why? Because no one else thought of it at that time to make an actual product like Apple did. (A mock up is not a product)
Its also interesting that as soon as the iPad came out everyone else came out with iPad like tablets. Before the iPad all tabs were Windows tablets that were thick and bulky.
Even the Joo Joo tablet which is bigger and thicker the original iPad and designed to be held in landscape mode which the iPad is comfortable in both landscape and book mode is not prior art.
That is why no one has thrown out Apples patents yet. Because Apple is the company that patented and made a product. Not vapor ware or mockups.
If the courts throw it all out, invalidate the patents etc then yes it will be fact. But that has not happened.
Member since:2006-11-12
You say there is prior art in a blockbuster movie (I am assuming like Samsung tried to say was 2001: A Space Odyssey) I am assuming that you have never watched the movie because there is no tablet in the movie.
No tablet in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"
I can't wait to hear your entertaining explanation of what those flat things are that are sitting on the table playing video in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3949GAIokg
Also you can't claim that Apple is a BAD company because no one else took the time to actually file a patent for something they already made if they made it to be what Apple has made it to be.p
No one else bothered to patent the design because the design was so utterly obvious and fraught with prior art.
Only Apple was deluded enough and arrogant enough to patent such a notion.
A tablet to be used like the iPad is.
Is this passage a sentence/point?
Any company before Apple could of done it but didn't. Why? Because no one else thought of it at that time to make an actual product like Apple did. (A mock up is not a product)
The Joojoo preceded the Ipad to both concept and market and in design. Not only had a lot of people already thought to make such a product, they made such a product and sold it before Apple sold the Ipad (not that first to market is some sort of admirable accomplishment).
Furthermore, not just other companies were gearing up for such tablets prior to the Ipad, but even Apple fanboys were speculating on the Apple tablet design, before it was introduced (sorry for the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MFoW-_y78
So, the design was so obvious, that even the tard fanboys were coming up the tablet designs before the Ipad that were almost identical to the Ipad.
Its also interesting that as soon as the iPad came out everyone else came out with iPad like tablets. Before the iPad all tabs were Windows tablets that were thick and bulky.
No. Apple fanboys have short memories.
The Crunchpad/JooJoo appeared and sold before the Ipad. Many non-Apple tablet rumors were buzzing prior at the time.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate a point that fanboys always seem to forget: thinness/miniaturization is not an innovation -- it is a matter of degree that diminishes naturally as a result of fundamental technological progress. And Apple has contributed absolutely nothing to fundamental technological progress.
Also, the Crunchpad/JooJoo was very thin, and others often beat Apple in the relentless thinness/miniaturization race.
Even the Joo Joo tablet which is bigger and thicker the original iPad and designed to be held in landscape mode which the iPad is comfortable in both landscape and book mode is not prior art.
You're kidding right (you're not that deluded)?:
http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cbd2.jpg?w=640
http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cbd3.jpg?w=640
That is why no one has thrown out Apples patents yet. Because Apple is the company that patented and made a product. Not vapor ware or mock-ups.
Again, the Crunchpad/JooJoo preceded the Ipad to concept and market, and no one bothered to patent the concept and design, because it was so utterly obvious.
If the courts throw it all out, invalidate the patents etc then yes it will be fact. But that has not happened.
Regardless of what happens in the courts, the Ipad design and concept is obvious and had tons of prior art. Apple did not originate the Ipad.
Member since:2005-11-10
can't wait to hear your entertaining explanation of what those flat things are that are sitting on the table playing video in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3949GAIokg
Interesting. I don't see them picking those things up (Since they are attached to the table) I also don't see ANYTHING on them but TV. I would agree with you if they even picked them up and carried them around, but they don't. Good try though.
Only Apple was deluded enough and arrogant enough to patent such a notion.
So then why did no one contest them filing and getting the patents if its so obvious. And why has no court yet invalidated the patents any place on earth??
Companies get design patents in Europe all the time. Its a common thing, yet no one did it.
The Joojoo preceded the Ipad to both concept and market and in design. Not only had a lot of people already thought to make such a product, they made such a product and sold it before Apple sold the Ipad (not that first to market is some sort of admirable accomplishment).
Furthermore, not just other companies were gearing up for such tablets prior to the Ipad, but even Apple fanboys were speculating on the Apple tablet design, before it was introduced (sorry for the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MFoW-_y78
So, the design was so obvious, that even the tard fanboys were coming up the tablet designs before the Ipad that were almost identical to the Ipad.
Furthermore, not just other companies were gearing up for such tablets prior to the Ipad, but even Apple fanboys were speculating on the Apple tablet design, before it was introduced (sorry for the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MFoW-_y78
So, the design was so obvious, that even the tard fanboys were coming up the tablet designs before the Ipad that were almost identical to the Ipad.
Hello, because EVERYONE that pays attention to Apple knows that Apple had been talking about tablets for years before the iPad came out. If you read the Steve Jobs bio you will see that the iPad idea came way before the iPhone. The iPhone came as a later idea after the iPad. Just because Apple keeps its ideas secret does not mean they have not been working on them for years and years. So back to the Joo Joo which came out after the iPhone. If the iPad idea came before the iPhone and the iPhone came out before the JooJoo. Who was working on a tablet first. People act as if a company can't have an idea and wait till the market is right to put it out. From what you are saying even though Apple long had the idea but never came out with the device because of things like multi touch issues, battery life, wack UI etc, they can't take credit for all the R&D they did in house and patents they filed over the years based on that etc. That doesn't even make sense.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/06/02/steve-jobs-the-ipad-concept-...
No. Apple fanboys have short memories.
No people who follow apple just happen to pay attention to the fact that Apple had tried to do this in the past already and had been talking about it since the late 80's when they came out with the Newton.
The Crunchpad/JooJoo appeared and sold before the Ipad. Many non-Apple tablet rumors were buzzing prior at the time.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate a point that fanboys always seem to forget: thinness/miniaturization is not an innovation -- it is a matter of degree that diminishes naturally as a result of fundamental technological progress. And Apple has contributed absolutely nothing to fundamental technological progress.
Also, the Crunchpad/JooJoo was very thin, and others often beat Apple in the relentless thinness/miniaturization race.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate a point that fanboys always seem to forget: thinness/miniaturization is not an innovation -- it is a matter of degree that diminishes naturally as a result of fundamental technological progress. And Apple has contributed absolutely nothing to fundamental technological progress.
Also, the Crunchpad/JooJoo was very thin, and others often beat Apple in the relentless thinness/miniaturization race.
Here is the kicker to all this. Apple filed its main design patent for the iPad in..... Wait for it, wait for it.... 2004!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d...
So Apple already had a patent pending on the iPad design before the JooJoo was even thought of! WAY before that non selling piece of Junk was thought of. OHHHH. So who had idea and design first?? According to the patent that would be Apple.
Oh yes and if you look at Apples patent it cites other companies who did patent tablet designs, they just happen to be different then Apples design!
And another fact is that people plead guilty to leaking internal info about the iPad a ways before it came out. Part of which led to a lot of the rumors etc.
How quick everyones memory seems to fade. But you claim fanboys have the bad memories?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/executive-pleads-guilty-to-l...
Regardless of what happens in the courts, the Ipad design and concept is obvious and had tons of prior art. Apple did not originate the Ipad.
So if there is so much prior art then it should be easy to prove and Apple should have no case?
But in actuality regardless of what YOU and I say Apple right now is the patent holder and is enforcing its patents. The fact that you don't like it is OPINION. LOL!
Member since:2011-05-12
In the Steve Jobs book he even in the early 80s said one day he'll have computer that fits in his hands. I think he even held a book as a visual demonstration.
BTW 2001 is a great movie. It's a shame they never pick up those tablet computers, because now some people think they couldn't be picked up or even used as more than just a TV screen embedded in a table. Oh well, like most "prior art" concerning the iPad none of it is actually a (real) tablet computer. But it is cool Samsung decided to model their products after SciFi movie props after the iPad did it as well and Samsung didn't before the iPad, so ehm...
At least people don't claim (yet) Siri is crap, because HALL was much more clever.
Member since:2009-05-19
Interesting. I don't see them picking those things up (Since they are attached to the table) I also don't see ANYTHING on them but TV. I would agree with you if they even picked them up and carried them around, but they don't. Good try though.
I just knew that you would say it. Just a perfect deflection. The devices are portable, because you can see the tables not having them later in the movie. And should I remind you, that this whole mess is not about a utility patent, it's about a design patent. Where the actual function of the device is not relevant at all.
So then why did no one contest them filing and getting the patents if its so obvious. And why has no court yet invalidated the patents any place on earth??
Because people have better things to do, other than reading through millions of applications USPTO and other patent organisations receive...
As for invalidation, NL judge didn't even consider the CD as a valid defence for Apple, but had no authority to strike it down.
Companies get design patents in Europe all the time. Its a common thing, yet no one did it.
Because it's easy. It costs 400 Eur for the paperwork and there is no validation of originality of the design.
Hello, because EVERYONE that pays attention to Apple knows that Apple had been talking about tablets for years before the iPad came out. If you read the Steve Jobs bio you will see that the iPad idea came way before the iPhone.
And Apple was involved with the Kinght-Ridder tablet 10 years before they filed their patent.
That doesn't even make sense.
Do you know what does not make sense? You saying that a mockup is not a valid defence to a design patent and two posts down defending Apple's right to defend it's own mockups and renders from 2004.
So if there is so much prior art then it should be easy to prove and Apple should have no case?
A) Trials take time. Re-examination also takes time. The patent only recently surfaced.
B) You do know what the comments from the judge were on this case? That Knight-Ridder is prior art.*
* http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/812969/ECF_Redacted_Order_in_Appl... See page 39 for explanation by the judge.
PS: Don't even try bringing Newton into this, because this is all about the design. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with Newton.
Member since:2010-09-23
You are correct, of course, that there was a "pad" of sorts in 2001. But the fact that this argument is even coming up is proof of the height of absurdity to which we have come.
I am building a time machine. The first thing I have to do is go back in time and kill H G Wells before he can write his book ...
Member since:
2007-01-13
The iPad design is virtually identical to a standard child's slate dating from the 1800s - same size, same thickness, same border area, same rounded corners.
http://photodune.net/item/old-slate-blackboard/530072
Steve Jobs would have had one when he was a child.
RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Tony Swash on Sat 10th Dec 2011 16:23 UTC
in reply to "the iPad design is over 100 years old."
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Alfman on Sat 10th Dec 2011 19:35 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2011-01-28
Tony Swash,
I can understand why people enjoy their i-wares, but for any one player to take all the credit without acknowledging anyone else's contributions (including market failures) is astonishingly arrogant. Why is it so important to give apple all the credit and discredit everyone else?
RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Tony Swash on Mon 12th Dec 2011 16:37 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2009-08-22
Tony Swash,
I can understand why people enjoy their i-wares, but for any one player to take all the credit without acknowledging anyone else's contributions (including market failures) is astonishingly arrogant. Why is it so important to give apple all the credit and discredit everyone else?
I can understand why people enjoy their i-wares, but for any one player to take all the credit without acknowledging anyone else's contributions (including market failures) is astonishingly arrogant. Why is it so important to give apple all the credit and discredit everyone else?
Where did I do that?
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 10th Dec 2011 20:09 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2006-07-14
This whole thing is not about who deserves credit or not, or who makes a better tablet. Its about refuting Apple's absurd design claims. The form factor of the the ipad is obvious. Nobody is copying apple on that. Proof that many other people came up with the same physical appearance for a simular product is proof of that.
This is a matter of who is correct as a matter of law ( which is in the realm of courts) rather than one of subjective inovation ( which is the realm of idiotic forum posters).
RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by brichpmr on Sat 10th Dec 2011 20:34 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Alfman on Sat 10th Dec 2011 20:45 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2011-01-28
RE[5]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by brichpmr on Sat 10th Dec 2011 23:02 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Splinter on Sat 10th Dec 2011 20:52 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2005-07-13
Again if Apple believed the "Market" will back them then why are the suing everyone. This belief that the "market" is magic and will do the right thing is absurd. Standard Oil, IBM, Bell and Microsoft are examples where the "market" failed to curb destructive company behaviors and the Law had to step in.
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by _txf_ on Sat 10th Dec 2011 23:29 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2008-03-17
If Apple's design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.
The market has no bearing whatsoever on whether apples design patents are valid. The market thinks the ipad is pretty sweet for reasons completely orthogonal to the design patents claimed by apple...
Ignoring the total lack of logic in your comment, and just speculating on what you wrote, how would the market decide if the competitors are being sued out of existence?
RE[5]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by brichpmr on Sun 11th Dec 2011 12:41 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2006-04-22
"If Apple's design claims are absurd, then the market will ultimately decide the issue. So far, the market thinks the iPad is pretty damn sweet.
The market has no bearing whatsoever on whether apples design patents are valid. The market thinks the ipad is pretty sweet for reasons completely orthogonal to the design patents claimed by apple...
Ignoring the total lack of logic in your comment, and just speculating on what you wrote, how would the market decide if the competitors are being sued out of existence? "
The market ALWAYS is the ultimate and final arbiter....judges come and go. If the iPad wasn't kicking butt and taking names, Samsung wouldn't be producing their arguably inferior clones.
RE[6]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Alfman on Sun 11th Dec 2011 18:16 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2011-01-28
brichpmr,
"The market ALWAYS is the ultimate and final arbiter....judges come and go. If the iPad wasn't kicking butt and taking names, Samsung wouldn't be producing their arguably inferior clones."
You're speaking in terms of your own ideals, but unfortunately the real world doesn't ALWAYS work that way. In fact it RARELY works that way. If you've been keeping up with the news, you know that *even* apple resorts to legal means to block their competitors from markets rather than allowing the markets to decide. They're not necessarily more guilty than any other corp, but they're still guilty.
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 12th Dec 2011 16:15 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2006-07-14
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by ichi on Sat 10th Dec 2011 21:17 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2007-03-06
Apple's core business strategy hinges on product differentiation. So other people copying Apple's products is a problem for the company, it undermines product differentiation and, because almost all the copies are tangibly inferior, it undermines Apple's brand.
Though luck then, because you can't seriusly claim exclusivity over a design where prior art exist.
You can easily give Apple that they make nice products with nice designs, and have the ability to market them correctly with the right timing.
That said, if they want to rely on product differentiation and keep competitors from copying the designs of their products then they'll have to come up with designs that are actually different and not just nice implementations of already existing designs.
RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by Tony Swash on Mon 12th Dec 2011 16:45 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2009-08-22
"Apple's core business strategy hinges on product differentiation. So other people copying Apple's products is a problem for the company, it undermines product differentiation and, because almost all the copies are tangibly inferior, it undermines Apple's brand.
Though luck then, because you can't seriusly claim exclusivity over a design where prior art exist.
You can easily give Apple that they make nice products with nice designs, and have the ability to market them correctly with the right timing.
That said, if they want to rely on product differentiation and keep competitors from copying the designs of their products then they'll have to come up with designs that are actually different and not just nice implementations of already existing designs. "
You seem to be saying things are not as they are. I was trying to state some facts - Apple doesn't want it's products copied, Apple's products are copied, and have been copied in the past, Apple has waged a legal war of attrition to make copying it's stuff more complicated, Apple will probably go on waging that war, sometimes Apple will win in the courts and sometimes it will lose, but it will wage that war because to not do so would be lunacy.
Can anybody honestly claim that Samsung decided to make it's tablets because of the impact of any tablet other than the iPad? Arguing about 'prior art' and the design of some almost forgotten tablet that failed to sell at some point in the past is the sort of arguments lawyers make. Pedantic nitpicking sort of arguments. But we know the simple truth. All tablets are iPad 'me too' products, all of them are only being made and sold because of the success of the iPad. Without the iPad there would be no tablet market.
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by ichi on Mon 12th Dec 2011 17:47 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2007-03-06
Can anybody honestly claim that Samsung decided to make it's tablets because of the impact of any tablet other than the iPad? Arguing about 'prior art' and the design of some almost forgotten tablet that failed to sell at some point in the past is the sort of arguments lawyers make. Pedantic nitpicking sort of arguments. But we know the simple truth. All tablets are iPad 'me too' products, all of them are only being made and sold because of the success of the iPad. Without the iPad there would be no tablet market.
Of course Samsung designs are because of iPad's success, but the thing is Samsung is fully entitled to do so precisely because of those "pedantic nitpicking arguments": the designs predate the iPad, so Apple has no saying on who adopts them.
Legally, Apple can try to claim those as their own IP, and legally as well Samsung can try to get all that invalidated on the courts based on prior art.
Considering that such prior art does actually exist I don't think Apple has much of a leg to stand on.
RE[4]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by amadensor on Mon 12th Dec 2011 19:56 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2006-04-10
The point is not that Samsung created a tablet because of Crunchpad, but instead that the design of a tablet is not unique to Apple, and would be obvious to anyone making them during that time period.
It would be much like Ford suing others for making 4 wheeled cars because the Model T Ford made them popular, even though Mercedes and others made them before Ford. 4 wheels is obvious. Look at the Reliant Robin if you have any questions, they fall over pretty easily on 3 wheels.
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by unclefester on Sun 11th Dec 2011 00:52 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2007-01-13
Apple is claiming that that they have a legal monopoly on rectangular media devices with narrow borders and rounded corners. This is total BS.
The only practical shape for a "media" tablet is a thin rectangle with narrow borders and rounded corners. The Sumerians worked this out over 5000 years ago.
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by unclefester on Sun 11th Dec 2011 02:41 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2007-01-13
Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of industrial design and architecture will tell you that every Apple design ever produced is highly derivative and unoriginal.
Everything from the Apple stores to the iPhone can be shown to be heavily influenced by prior art dated as far back as the mid-19th century.
RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by MOS6510 on Sun 11th Dec 2011 12:26 UTC
in reply to "the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2011-05-12
Not sure anyone would mistake this for an iPad.
What kind of CPU does your slate have, memory, operating system? What kind of default apps (email, browser, media player) does it have?
I guess it doesn't run Flash, but nor does the iPad and on the iPad you can't write with chalk (I guess you could, but I wouldn't recommend it).
So when your kid asks for an iPad for Christmas just save some money and give him a slate. He'll never notice the difference.
RE[2]: the iPad design is over 100 years old.
by unclefester on Sun 11th Dec 2011 14:14 UTC
in reply to "RE: the iPad design is over 100 years old."
Member since:2007-01-13
Not sure anyone would mistake this for an iPad.
What kind of CPU does your slate have, memory, operating system? What kind of default apps (email, browser, media player) does it have?.
What kind of CPU does your slate have, memory, operating system? What kind of default apps (email, browser, media player) does it have?.
Totally irrelevant.
A slate is a real product. Apple tried to sue Samsung in Europe based on a nothing more than a drawing (Apple lost BTW).
Apple were stupid enough to sue Samsung and now must face the consequences. These include massive amounts offree publicity for Samsung, a public disgusted with Apple behaviour and rejection of Apple IP by the courts.
Member since:
2007-01-13
This tablet is about 5000 years old. Note the 16/9 resolution, narrow borders and *cough* rounded corners.
http://forces.si.edu/soils/04_00_38.html
RE: 5000 year old prototype
by Lennie on Sat 10th Dec 2011 14:22 UTC
in reply to "5000 year old prototype"
Member since:2007-09-22
The Babylonians also had spreadsheets at 1800 BC, so tablet computing is really old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics
(computing pretty much means 'doing math' after all, so even people can be a computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer )
RE: 5000 year old prototype
by Morgan on Mon 12th Dec 2011 12:35 UTC
in reply to "5000 year old prototype"
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2007-11-23
RE: And this thread is proof that
by clasqm on Sun 11th Dec 2011 07:17 UTC
in reply to "And this thread is proof that"
RE[2]: And this thread is proof that
by unclefester on Sun 11th Dec 2011 07:48 UTC
in reply to "RE: And this thread is proof that"
Member since:2007-01-13
RE[3]: And this thread is proof that
by Gusar on Sun 11th Dec 2011 08:21 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: And this thread is proof that"
Member since:2010-07-16
Member since:
2007-01-13
Here's a prototype full colour multimedia device from 1880. Note the stylus input.
The patent date is June 29 1875.
Remarkably it is still in perfect working order.
http://www.icollect247.com/itempage.php?uniqueid=36435
Edited 2011-12-11 07:57 UTC
Member since:
2011-02-11
Member since:2007-01-13
SAMSUNG SyncMaster 790df Black 17" CRT Monitor (early 2000s)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001177
Member since:
2006-02-22