Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2011 09:33 UTC
Legal Day 2 is underway in the Apple v. Samsung case in The Netherlands, a microcosm of what would have happened in Germany, had Germany implemented the concept of due process. Most interesting bit so far? Samsung is using the Knight Ridder tablet from 1994 as a case of prior art. I was unaware of this device, but be sure to watch the video - this is an iPad. Amazing. This doesn't actually surprise me though - my father worked at a large newspaper company his entire life until he retired a few years ago, and in the early '90s, he already attended demonstrations of devices like this, taking home promotional material that amazed my child brain. This was supposed to be the future of newspapers, until development on these kinds of devices suddenly halted - my father never understood why. Update: Forgot to mention that like yesterday, Andreas Udo de Haes, editor at WebWereld.nl, present in the court room, is covering this. This time, in English. Update II: Samsung has presented 20 cases of prior art for both tablets and smartphones. Update III: I'm liking Samsung's lawyers.
Thread beginning with comment 484599
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neat
by dorin.lazar on Thu 11th Aug 2011 11:10 UTC
dorin.lazar
Member since:
2006-12-15

I wasn't aware of the previous Knight Ridder, but for sure the tablet form factor is old, and now finally someone shows that it's not real inovation.
I really hope that Apple will be turned down on this one. Maybe they get back on creating better products, not on fighting in the court.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Neat
by Kroc on Thu 11th Aug 2011 11:26 in reply to "Neat"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

They do have a better product. It's well rated, they're selling them faster than they can make them and the competition is struggling to offer an equal experience.

That playing field may level, sure, but Apple are trying to put a stop to that early on. If the market becomes awash with a mass of tablets, it only waters down their message.

Apple can compete, they just don't want to have to get to that. They want to be permanently ahead of the market by crippling any competition first, before it becomes real competition. They've seen how the PC market played out in the 80s and don't want a repeat that left Apple in last place and close to dying.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Neat
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2011 11:32 in reply to "RE: Neat"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They do have a better product.


[citation needed]

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Neat
by pica on Thu 11th Aug 2011 12:29 in reply to "RE: Neat"
pica Member since:
2005-07-10

They do have a better product. ...


Better for which purposes?
Better for whom?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Neat
by satan666 on Thu 11th Aug 2011 12:30 in reply to "RE: Neat"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

They do have a better product.

Why? Because you are forced to use only one app store with applications approved by the big brother as opposed to choosing between app stores or even better putting the app on the microSD card and running it from there? Wait! The superior tablet doesn't even have a microSD card. And why do you have to go through iTunes to access your files? Why can't you have direct access to your own files?

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Neat
by Gusar on Thu 11th Aug 2011 12:41 in reply to "RE: Neat"
Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

[...] it only waters down their message.

What message exactly would that be?

And if they really have a better product, what exactly are they afraid of?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Neat
by cfgr on Thu 11th Aug 2011 12:55 in reply to "RE: Neat"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

What is wrong with competition these days? Can you imagine a paper factory blocking competitors because their products are also white, thin, rectangular, and something to write on? Can you imagine if someone blocked anything similar to a box on four wheels? Can you imagine we had patents 10000 years ago and someone blocked the design of a round wheel? Hey, it's ok if you make a wheel too, we are not anti-competitive here, just don't make it look round like ours.

This isn't a trademark issue. You cannot mistake an iPad for a Samsung tablet because it is clearly labeled as such. Samsung doesn't try to sell its tablets as iPads, it tries to compete.

It's always been like this: a company makes a product based on ideas they've seen elsewhere, along with some of their own too. A competitor shows up, takes some good ideas from the first company, adds their own ideas and releases a competing product. This forces both companies to keep improving. Ultimately this should result in the best product (or most wanted product) for everyone.

So where are all these free market liberals you used to see? Most discussions are now overwhelmed by Apple fans trying to defend something that directly violates the core of our economy. It actually saddens me that people can be so blind for a company. Abuse should be severely punished, it doesn't matter if it's Apple, Microsoft, Google or the pope.

Did someone consider filing a complaint to Nelie Kroes yet?

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Neat
by Soulbender on Thu 11th Aug 2011 14:46 in reply to "RE: Neat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They do have a better product. It's well rated, they're selling them faster than they can make them and the competition is struggling to offer an equal experience.


That's rather subjective and market share is not a measurement of quality. If it was DOS must have been vastly superior to MacOS.
I agree with everything else though.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Neat
by Shkaba on Thu 11th Aug 2011 17:28 in reply to "RE: Neat"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

They do have a better product. It's well rated, they're selling them faster than they can make them and the competition is struggling to offer an equal experience.


Selling them faster is the only fact in this statement, everything else is your opinion (and quite wrong one too)


That playing field may level, sure, but Apple are trying to put a stop to that early on. If the market becomes awash with a mass of tablets, it only waters down their message.


I believe you were trying to say "water down their profits", no? As for the message, Apple has no clue what so ever. Thay are masters of lying, stealing, etc.


Apple can compete, they just don't want to have to get to that. They want to be permanently ahead of the market by crippling any competition first, before it becomes real competition. They've seen how the PC market played out in the 80s and don't want a repeat that left Apple in last place and close to dying.


History shows that they cannot compete, that is why they are resorting to litigation.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Neat
by fran on Thu 11th Aug 2011 19:04 in reply to "RE: Neat"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

And in the other corner...
Go's to show OSnews editors are not all one sided.
Thom, Hadrian on the left, David in the middle, Croc on the right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Neat
by Beta on Sun 14th Aug 2011 20:36 in reply to "RE: Neat"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

They do have a better product.

I’ve played with an iPad*, and I just cannot agree that its a better product. It is heavy and cumbersome. I worry whenever I put it on a surface that it will be scratched or will scratch. The tilt sensors often trigger at flat angles so i’m often tilting the device to return it to where I want it - having a lock‐screen toggle is a cop out. I hope the touch sensor is much better on the iPad2 because I find I hit the wrong targets more often than not - in Safari or Sodoku. It doesn’t have USB.

The only thing I think iPad does better than say, Tab 10.1, is having the app download progress in the app drawer.

iPad has the advantage of being ‘first’ to market, and has gobbled up a large amount of people who would buy a tablet. In a penetrated market, it is harder to judge competing devices and their sales figures because they aren’t just having to stand on their own merit.

*My father won an iPad at a security conference (lol).

Reply Parent Score: 2