Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2012 17:10 UTC
Legal "A judge in Britain is forcing Apple to publicly acknowledge that Samsung didn't copy the iPad, according to a report by Bloomberg. A judge has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers highlighting a recent ruling that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. Apple must leave that notice up on its website for the next six months." Apple can still appeal this decision, but I'm hoping it'll be denied. This is just too hilarious not to go through.
Thread beginning with comment 527346
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I'm happy!!!
by mrstep on Thu 19th Jul 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm happy!!!"
mrstep
Member since:
2009-07-18

It's not that I like this patent crap either, but if Apple didn't patent the disappearing scroll bar, then someone else would and would sue them / try to block their products. The system is just a friggin' mess. I'm fully aware the none of the big companies are trying to change it since they happen to be the only ones with enough money to abuse other companies (i.e. this helps keep small companies down because they can't afford to play in this sandbox), but it isn't specifically Apple.

In terms of thinking Microsoft is more mature: Were you too young to follow the antitrust lawsuits and why they were happening? Combining dominant market position with incompatible networking / file formats / APIs, forced bundling of their OS, wholesale theft of technologies, etc. doesn't strike me as the example I'd use. The government has them on a tight(er) leash today. If Apple had a 90+% ownership of smartphones / PCs / whatever, you'd be more likely to see the government step in - they get somewhat freer reign because they're not by any definition in a monopoly position.

Anyway, I saw this ruling and thought it was a joke: The backs of the devices are distinguishable. Really? That's from a supposedly educated judge?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I'm happy!!!
by Alfman on Thu 19th Jul 2012 18:59 in reply to "RE[2]: I'm happy!!!"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

mrstep,

Your right, the patent system sucks.

"Anyway, I saw this ruling and thought it was a joke: The backs of the devices are distinguishable. Really? That's from a supposedly educated judge?"

I didn't see that actual claim, per say. He said it wasn't copied, not "the backs of devices are distinguishable". Take for example two brands of toilet paper, they may not be distinguishable, but being so generic there's no implication they were "copied" either.

If you took a dozen product designers in seclusion, and had them develop tablet form factors given the same specs, I bet you as many as half of them would be indistinguishable from the back without some kind of additional differential marking. But so what? Generic designs shouldn't be exclusive. Apple likes "simplicity", but that often happens to also be very generic looking as well. There'd have to be something truly unique to warrant giving it any kind of protection, frankly it'd have to be more complex than anything apple has put out in the tablet space.

Reply Parent Score: 3