Now there's a surprise (not)
title says it all.
A South Korean court has ruled that Apple did not infringe on three of Samsung's mobile patents and the firm would not be getting a ban on sales of older iPhones and iPads in the country. The Seoul court ruled that products like the iPhone 4S and 5 and the iPad 2 were not infringing on Sammy patents that cover message display …
title says it all.
People are always looking for interpretation etc
Do you not think that it might actually be because Samsung is a style thief?
Guy at work has a Samsung laptop, looks just like a Macbook Pro, even the HP laptops look similar. Aluminium casing with black keys just like the 2008/2009 onwards Mac laptops.
Aluminum casing makes some sense on a laptop since it improves the heat exchange between the laptop's innards and the exterior. So better cooling than plastic. There is, therefor, a technically justified reason to adopt aluminum.
Keyboard keys have always been black on laptops.
Those are not enough to claim any sort of resemblance.
<Looks at silver+black plastic laptop with cream keyboard on desk>
Nope, laptop keyboards have not always been black. This one I have here is around 8 years old now and I think I have a Sony one with silver keys from about 13-14 years ago in a cupboard somewhere.
I don't know which models the earlier poster is referring to, so I can't say if they have any significant resemblance to either each other or any of Apple's offerings - similarly I can't say that they definitely don't have any resemblance. You need to try to keep an open mind about these things.
Pascal Monett wrote: "Aluminlum casing makes some sense on a laptop since it improves the heat exchange …."
I can see this, plastic being a decent insulator. Now, how does this fit with all the nay-sayers when Apple were one of the first to do this, who complained that the metal case is a bad idea because it would interfere with wi-fi reception?
I'm more inclined to agree with Pascal's remark, plus it does look nice and is durable.
As for the imitation: most probably, unless all the other designers just happened to see the light at the same time or it was an example of convergent evolution.
There is, therefor, a technically justified reason to adopt aluminum.
So why didn't anyone (or at least, very many) do it until Apple did? Everyone was following the black plastic of IBM/Dell/Compaq laptops (even Apple, the G3's were black plastic too weren't they?)
Some of the earliest of the modern era laptops had a flat LCD screen, a hinged lid, a keyboard, ports and CPU below the keyboard, internal batteries.
Apple copied all of these features in their laptops. These are massive design statements but they were blatantly copied.
The thing is non-Apple fanbois don't go around shouting "Apple copied xyz" as they don't care. It is innovation. You look at the competition and take the best bits and improve upon them to create something better still. The competition looks at what you have done and repeats the process.
It happens in every walk of life, it is how technology evolves and we progress. If Apple were in an isolated part of the world with no outside contact for 30 years, they wouldn't have invented the iPhone, the iPad, the iPod etc.
Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants.
Keyboard keys have always been black on laptops.
pretty sure my dad had a Sony Vaio with blue keys.
i think the point is, keyboard keys used to always match the colour of the casing, which was mostly always black plastic as well.
"keyboard keys used to always match the colour of the casing"
If we're picking nits, that's not true either. More than a few laptops were made with silver keys in a grey or black case. A lot of Dells from last decade had black keys in a grey case.
Actually, Apple were one of the pioneers in portable computing as we know it today, along with NEC, Toshiba and IBM. But y'know, haters like you feel that you must go and preach the history of computing according to Microsoft/Stallman [delete as applicable] where by Apple innovated nothing. The actual facts of the matter couldn't be further from your version of the truth.
That and Apple seem to have popularised the chiclet keyboard on laptops.
That imitation, convergent evolution thing sure seems to happen a lot to Apple.
Apple was the first to put a track pad in front of the keyboard. The industry followed suite.
“Actually, Apple were one of the pioneers in portable computing as we know it today, along with NEC, Toshiba and IBM. But y'know, haters like you feel that you must go and preach the history of computing according to Microsoft/Stallman [delete as applicable] where by Apple innovated nothing. The actual facts of the matter couldn't be further from your version of the truth“
Toshiba was, Apple's portable PC was a unusable piece of junk with a 2 tone car battery.
I think Osbourn was before Apple, 1981 as a matter of fact.
Then there was Compaq, Grid, Epson, Poqet (with a netbook equivalent)
Apple? doesn't show up until 1991 with a Powerbook 100, though there was a Macintosh Portable in 1989.
Quite a while before Apple was "one of the pioneers in portable computing".
"Nope, laptop keyboards have not always been black. "
They've mostly been black or dark grey for 20 years. I have a collection of old ones dating back to the late 1980s to back that assertion (including a couple with inbuilt trackballs)
There are only so many form factors a laptop can take and Sony's range have generally been the style leaders, not Apple's.
"As Apple has continued to infringe our patented mobile technologies"
How can they get away with saying that when the Judge has just ruled that they didn't infringe? Until any decision in any appeal does come, Apple did not infringe.
Oh, and I really shouldn't have to do this, but this being an El Reg Apple article, I need to make it clear I am not a fanatic of either company, own products by both and was not paid for my opinion (thus covering the usual gripes of people who simply have a different opinion to mine).
They didn't specify which patents they were referring to? Maybe they were thinking of something that Apple did infringe on?
Well, at least it wasn't a court a few miles from Apple's HQ, with an all-American judge and jury and a jury foreman with an axe to grind and no real knowledge of IT.
Makes a change.
Yeah, what an outdated judiciary they have. They should do what the rest of the world does and only hire foreign judges and fly in people from abroad to sit on juries (none of this “of their peers” nonsense!)
Samsung is a South Korean multinational conglomerate company headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul.
And the court was where exactly?
horses for courses maybe?
The significant difference is no court, not even a "home field advantage" court has ruled that apple attempted to garnish any of Samsung's intellectual or design properties.
The worst that has happened to Apple has been being asked by a Brittish court to appoligize for accusing Samsung of copying when in the courts opinnion they did not do so. I am also not aware that any CEO at Apple has had to have 2 presidential pardons for bribery. Perhaps all the bluster on here about Apple trying to patent rounded corners is just the bias of the readership? Maybe justice is being done by Apple where others like Blackberry did not think it was worth fighting for. The Blackjack was the Samsung copy of the Blackberry. It did not copy the encryption and server software that made Blackberry the ubiquitous chice on Wall Street. So maybe it made less sense for Blackberry to sue Samsung. Apple uses design and specialized manufacturing to separate its products from the more generic choices in the market. Maybe this is why they do not find copys to be so amusing.
A glance at how much more successful Samsung has been in profiting by selling android based phones, than the rest of the android manufacturers might give some indication of how important those design choices were to Apples success.
"Well, at least it wasn't a court a few miles from Apple's HQ, with an all-American judge and jury and a jury foreman with an axe to grind and no real knowledge of IT."
No instead it is a court in a country where an ex Samsung chairman was convicted of c.$100 million fraud TWICE (once a dodgey bond issue to gift the company to his grandson, the other time pure and simple tax evasion) and was gifted a suspended sentence both times with his political connections being the only possible explanation for why he got off so lightly.
At least the Koreans have successfully accused him. Apple, like many other large corporations, are completely taking the p*** out of tax systems throughout Europe and the US. Legislators, Government and Tax officials are completely powerless to do anything about it. Each change to the law to plug a loophole is immediately worked around or abandoned due to the political power these corporations have. Governments cannot afford to take them because of the political links and endless money that is used as a sweetener to make something palatable.
Look at what Apple have promised so that they could build their new HQ.
The same goes for all the major supermarket chains in the UK. I am sure this is no different elsewhere. In the UK the big constructions companies have lobbied government about how badly they are doing, result, masses of building projects with tax payers money, huge deregulation of planning law. In any major city the skyline is covered with cranes and has been for the last few years. Construction has not been doing so badly.
This endless tit-for-tat with Apple, Samsung and a huge range of other companies only benefits the lawyers, stifles innovation & ultimately costs the customer.
Who cares if a laptop has a keyboard, a track pad and a hinged screen or a phone is rectangular with a screen and may even make phones calls. These are basic requirements to make the device work. It is much the same that a car has 4 wheels, a steering wheel and an engine.
The whole thing is pathetic and it should stop being endlessly reported as if the results were some kind of game. Once that happened and the free publicity stopped then the endless court cases may start to fade away.
"Apple uses design and specialized manufacturing to separate its products from the more generic choices in the market. Maybe this is why they do not find copys to be so amusing."
What? So you are biased and full of c***. Ios7 for example is a Android copy so how does that design separates them from the others? The exterior design is not original also but the court had to decide if the hardware and they way was ment to work are a copy.
"We are glad the Korean court joined others around the world in standing up for real innovation and rejecting Samsung's ridiculous claims," Apple's South Korea spokesman Steve Park said.
Did he manage to keep a straight face while saying "real innovation"?
I got one of these in 2004:
Silver with black keys and probably one of the best looking laptops I've seen. Its still great looking, hasnt aged apart from its a bit slow.
Shortly after this , Panasonic made an Ali laptop (the above is actually magnesium). The Panasonic I think was only ever released in Japan but was the lightest device for the form factor.
My first silver metal laptop with black keys was a c.2001 Titanium PowerBook. I'm glad we can talk about this topic as it is exceedingly relevant to the story posted.
Samsung didn't technically lose against Apple — being the claimant it merely failed to win. The standard might be only balance of probabilities but the burden was entirely on Samsung. It's much the same distinction that causes criminal defendants to be found not guilty rather than innocent.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017