Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Aug 2011 17:32 UTC
Legal Okay, I didn't see this one coming. German press agency dpa is reporting that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction barring Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being distributed in the entire European Union except for The Netherlands, over a design patent. Competition at its finest, people, and this is clearly in the interest of consumers. I'm ashamed to be European. Updates in the article now. This iterative update process isn't really working when you've got a gazillion of them.
Thread beginning with comment 484312
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: zzzz
by Sabon on Tue 9th Aug 2011 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: zzzz"
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple is just trying to make sure the great copy machines (Google and Samsung) can't create a clone of the iPhone and iPad and not pay for the privilege.


you do know about the prada and the crunchpad, do you?
"

I'll give you that. But neither were in production when Apple came out with the iPhone.

So if anything, Apple copied what appears to have been a not very popular device (popular as far as the populous in general) and created a very popular device. Something was obviously lacking in the original.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: zzzz
by organgtool on Wed 10th Aug 2011 05:36 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

neither were in production when Apple came out with the iPhone.

The Prada was released nearly six months before the iPhone.

So if anything, Apple copied

I think the grandparent's point was not that Apple copied the Prada, but that the design itself wasn't so very innovative to begin with if other companies developed it simultaneously and independently.

Something was obviously lacking in the original.

Yes, the Apple logo. Regardless of what was "lacking", according to the Apple fans, whoever does anything first should have a complete monopoly on that idea/design. By that logic, the iPhone is a KIRF - a successful copycat, but a copycat none the less. Personally, I don't see anything innovative about a touchscreen surrounded by a black bezel.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: zzzz
by Pro-Competition on Wed 10th Aug 2011 12:23 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

So if anything, Apple copied what appears to have been a not very popular device (popular as far as the populous in general) and created a very popular device. Something was obviously lacking in the original.


Let me make sure I have this right:

It is OK to copy something that didn't sell well, but it's not OK to copy something that does sell well?

Seriously?!

P.S. And it's OK to register a Community Design that copies a pre-existing product?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: zzzz
by JAlexoid on Wed 10th Aug 2011 12:40 in reply to "RE[3]: zzzz"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Talking about blatant abuse Apple's CD for incase's Convertible Magazine Jacket for iPad
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/001266241-0001

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: zzzz
by JAlexoid on Wed 10th Aug 2011 12:38 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So if anything, Apple copied what appears to have been a not very popular device (popular as far as the populous in general) and created a very popular device. Something was obviously lacking in the original.


Based on your logic, Google did the same thing to iPhone. They took a moderately popular mobile OS and created a wildly popular mobile OS (Popularity != margins and profits. Popularity = numbers).

I brand you as the Apple apologist!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: zzzz
by somebody on Wed 10th Aug 2011 12:41 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

lol, so apple can claim anything not popular?

in all your fanboyism i wonder if you fart apple shaped logo smoke;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: zzzz
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 10th Aug 2011 15:15 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I'll give you that. But neither were in production when Apple came out with the iPhone.

So if anything, Apple copied what appears to have been a not very popular device (popular as far as the populous in general) and created a very popular device. Something was obviously lacking in the original.


Sorry, Chuckles, but that reasoning also applies to all of the accusations that iFanboys have directed at Microsoft over the years. Clearly something was lacking in MacOS (and Apple computers in general), given that they're an abject failure in the market compared to Windows-based PCs.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: zzzz
by jtfolden on Wed 10th Aug 2011 19:40 in reply to "RE[3]: zzzz"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Sorry, Chuckles, but that reasoning also applies to all of the accusations that iFanboys have directed at Microsoft over the years. Clearly something was lacking in MacOS (and Apple computers in general), given that they're an abject failure in the market compared to Windows-based PCs.


No, that's fairly idiotic logic. Apple is one of the top selling PC brands in the market. In fact, they seem to OWN the $1000+ segment. That would hardly make them a failure. Try again.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: zzzz
by smashIt on Wed 10th Aug 2011 20:56 in reply to "RE[2]: zzzz"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll give you that. But neither were in production when Apple came out with the iPhone.


that doesn't matter
apple claims that these designs are their invention, which they are obviously not

but now they are sueing every competitor based on that lie

Reply Parent Score: 2