Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:05 UTC
Legal Yes, I'm hearing you guys - time to tone down a bit on the patent news. Hence, a summary here of recent developments concerning the various legal cases between Samsung and Apple. Today in The Netherlands, the judge ruled [Dutch] that Samsung will not be able to block the iPhone/iPad from the Dutch market. In the meantime, the Australian courts upheld the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the American courts ruled that while the Tab indeed infringes upon Apple's design patents, Apple has not yet convinced the judge that that actually matters. Tying this all together with earlier rulings we already covered - it seems like judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly. Update: DailyTech has some detailed visual comparisons between Samsung's and Apple's devices, as well with the various design patents. Huh. You don't say.
Thread beginning with comment 493203
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Innovation
by atsureki on Sun 16th Oct 2011 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Innovation"
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

So you're telling me that apple should be the only one that's allowed to make a tablet?

What do you expect? that samsung and the others do round tablets for no reason than not to infringe on a stupid apple patent?


Listen for the sounds of WP7, RIM Playbook, and WebOS being called Apple clones, and you'll hear crickets.

A duck is a duck, and a Samsung Android device is a rip-off of an Apple iOS device. It's for the courts to decide whether the law protects Apple from being ripped off.

I hope it does, because I hate horizontal monopolies and rampant copying. WebOS is neat, and maybe if there were any room in the market for actual alternatives to Apple's designs, even HP's celebrated incompetence wouldn't have been able to bury it. But alas, I'm becoming wistful.

Are you forgetting the LG Prada? the design of it looks quite a lot like an iphone, samsung, motorola device.

So now samsung has to make an spherical phone that makes no sense at all?


The LG Prada indeed looks like every other slate phone, provided it isn't turned on. It even gets the honor of first to market with virtual touch key input. But in operation, it's obvious it has a slightly modified dumbphone OS, and that touch input is based on number keys and T9. It came out scant few months ahead of iPhone but was decades behind in tech and innovation.

LG had a neat idea and put a little work into it. Apple had a neater idea and put a ton of work into it. Samsung saw Apple's neat idea and put a tiny bit of work into copying it. If you're in Samsung's position, you're poised to offer the same product quality at a lower price with the same profit, because you never really had to do any work. That is, unless the law intervenes.

Next you'll be telling me that everyone make weird looking laptops just because they can't look like macbooks...


This looks like a MacBook: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392106,00.asp#fbid=8UBWpJzlQ3...
This does not: http://topdesign72.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Asus-laptop-best-...

It's obvious, pathetic, and disgusting all at once that Samsung's R&D is simply handed a stack of Apple products and told to reskin it in black plastic and ship it.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

It may or may not be illegal, but either way, don't defend it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Innovation
by Alfman on Sun 16th Oct 2011 07:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

In an era where removing buttons and using pure touch input is trendy, it would be hard to make something that doesn't look like something else - that doesn't mean it's a copy. By your own admission, you say apple failed to make something that looks different than something before it.

Personally this doesn't bother me in the least - so long as real customers aren't actually confused. However since your the one trumping up "rampant copying", then at the very least you should acknowledge that apple is also guilty of it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Innovation
by linux-it on Sun 16th Oct 2011 18:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

ok, you missed it on all points by defending this way.

Prada looks like someting else so it's ok to get that model and use it. And only because it internally works different..? Ever noticed the major diferences in android vs iOS? Tey are hardly compareable.

Ok, let's sue Apple for te notificatins and the voice control. Thise are old too. So much for the "inventions" of apple. And OTA.... what about MMS etc. Seriously we're talking about a religion -- "if you touch apple you touch me.."

In fact, Apple is not for their customers. They *refuse* to give you any choices. It's their way or... How good can that be. And don't come up with that "it just works" -- I never have seen so many problems with the latest iOS updates and still the device(s) lack basic functionality.

The only onses who loose: the customers. Apple is not innovative -- they are just very good at marketing. People folow them because they are affected by that maketing machine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Innovation
by jsolares on Sun 16th Oct 2011 22:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Innovation"
jsolares Member since:
2005-07-06

Listen for the sounds of WP7, RIM Playbook, and WebOS being called Apple clones, and you'll hear crickets.

A duck is a duck, and a Samsung Android device is a rip-off of an Apple iOS device. It's for the courts to decide whether the law protects Apple from being ripped off.

I hope it does, because I hate horizontal monopolies and rampant copying. WebOS is neat, and maybe if there were any room in the market for actual alternatives to Apple's designs, even HP's celebrated incompetence wouldn't have been able to bury it. But alas, I'm becoming wistful.

The LG Prada indeed looks like every other slate phone, provided it isn't turned on. It even gets the honor of first to market with virtual touch key input. But in operation, it's obvious it has a slightly modified dumbphone OS, and that touch input is based on number keys and T9. It came out scant few months ahead of iPhone but was decades behind in tech and innovation.

LG had a neat idea and put a little work into it. Apple had a neater idea and put a ton of work into it. Samsung saw Apple's neat idea and put a tiny bit of work into copying it. If you're in Samsung's position, you're poised to offer the same product quality at a lower price with the same profit, because you never really had to do any work. That is, unless the law intervenes.

This looks like a MacBook: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392106,00.asp#fbid=8UBWpJzlQ3...
This does not: http://topdesign72.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Asus-laptop-best-...

It's obvious, pathetic, and disgusting all at once that Samsung's R&D is simply handed a stack of Apple products and told to reskin it in black plastic and ship it.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

It may or may not be illegal, but either way, don't defend it.


So it's ok when apple does it, but not when samsung does...

Unless i'm reading it wrong apple IS going after samsung by how the device looks physically, that IS wrong.

They're also going after how the OS looks and behaves, they might win in looks, shouldn't win at all in the behavior part, to me those patents shouldn't have even been granted.

As i said again i hope apple loses most of their claims hopefully all, or we're all screwed.

Why do you think we have a new iphone/ipad every year? if it weren't for android we'd probably still be at the iphone 3G :S

I find it funny you say LG put little work in it, do you work for them? did you work on the device? decades behind? really!?!?!?!?

Edited 2011-10-16 22:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2