yes, sony tablets (especially model P) totally look like ipad!
Barely one day after the IFA consumer electronics show in Berlin opened its doors to the general public, Samsung had to pull its unreleased Galaxy Tab 7.7 from its booth, including all posters and promotional materials. A Dusseldorf Regional Court recently granted Apple a temporary sales ban on the earlier Galaxy Tab 10.1 …
Wasn't it the 7" tablet that Jobs made jokes about before that it wasn't a real tablet?
And now it's too close and confusing to Apple's Tablets?
What planet are the lawyers living on that they're able to get away with all this? And why aren't Samsung's lawyers knocking these things down easily?
Perhaps they're building up a huge list of issues to assault at once, as what's currently going on (and how obvious it'd be to knock these points down) doesn't appear to make much sense to me.
Photoshopped evidence, prior art, Jobs himself saying it's not comparable.
I mean, instead of the doctored evidence, couldn't Samsung just say to the Judge. Take these 2 products fresh, no-one else touching them, fresh from the factory. Turn them on. Do they look/work the same? (and throw in PalmPilot Colour/Symbian/Meego/WindowsCE devices to add to the fun)
If Samsung wins this lawsuit, maybe they will be able to claim damages?
Other than that, Apple's suit is essentially claiming that they defined the image of tablet when in fact they have simply copied previous tablet ideas and used modern parts to make it a more usable device. They then turn around and claim people copied them!
Ah yes, I remember Samsung's Tab and their 10.1 debuted before the first iPad didn't it! Hmm actually no, it only came out a year after the iPad was released and actually created the tablet market you see today. Would Samsung have ever released a tablet form factor computer to any success without the iPad? I would say no. Nobody thought there would be a market for one before Apple's brilliant insight as MS had singularly failed to be able to for 10 years previously. It took everybody else a year at least to be in a position to actually create these clones, and it's not hard to see what their inspiration was. What short memories people have...
Since Samsung do not use IOS or other apple pipware it cannot be a knock off dead, but their lawyers do live on planet money,
How are they able to bend facts to suite their altered reality and make money along the way?
Apple are just ensuring that I will never have a toy pad with its Ipip rubbish.
Apple cannot even get a sales site working properly, I used to buy gift cards for a daughter suckered into one of the apple toys. Then apple could not manage the site so shut its function down
Still they did offer me the 'convenient' (their lie) alternative driving round the countryside to see if I could find a shop selling them, convenient, -not!
Perhaps they followed my suggestion after all and called in a real software house, I suggested Microsoft when they refused to make it work, they never told me if they fixed it so shoudl I know via mind reading (tm).
Mind you are you saying that they now sell them for delivery via snail mail order?
I used to be able to buy them in real time, order and get them sent to the registered user of choice but then it all stopped when they 'had a technical problem',( their security was borked).
After a real bust up with the children on their hindrance desk when they had their (un)helpful suggestion of driving round town (at 11:00 p.m.) I never went back to their dumb on/off line 'store'.
Gee I have not missed their 'our way or no way attitude'.
No, it is not Star Trek. It is Battlestar Galactica, in a Season 4.0, Disc Two, Episode: The Ties That Bind, aired April 18, 2008.
At 10:23 seconds, Kara Thrace, sitting in her cabin in the Demetrius, a data tablet is visible sitting on her desk.. At time index 10:26, she is actually handling it.
Is that an iPad, slyly pre-announced by Apple? If so, it would have been in the year 2008. I seriously doubt Apple in 2008 knew it was going to finally lock the iPad look to what it was when announced in April 2010. Has Apple EVER pre-announced by 2 years something it dearly though was crucial to its survival? I don't know, but I doubt it.
In Razor, also in 2008, this Acer Tablet:
was seen. It is not as thin as the one later aired in the "The Ties That Bind" episode.
Some more images:
Now, the tablet shown might be the same as in Razor (I haven't read all the comparisons and screen caps), but from the face shots only, the tablet Thrace is holding, if really not shown on edge, could be confused as a prototype iPad.
Now, why isn't Acer banding with Samsung, or did the two secretly band but are not talking about it (or, did they discuss it openly and i simply not read about it?)?
Seems to me, Apple grabbed an opportunity and ran with it. The Acer or whomever's tablet Thrace is holding is displaying the notion of picture in picture, which implies interactive capabilities, probably just like one might expect in the ages ago Space: 2001 tablet.
Yes, it's been said many times that the courts threw out the look and feel argument by apple, but the screen interactivity displayed in 2008 would seem to be prior art that can be claimed as a valid defense by any the crosshairs of apples buckshot-spraying attorneys.
'This year's IFA turned out to be Apple's tablet Waterloo'
I'm not sure which Waterloo you are referring to, but from where I am looking there still isn't a single viable competitor to the iPad. Most of the
As el reg reported yesterday, of the 1 million Samsung Tabs shipped, only 20,000 have been sold, and Samsung is the maybe the most popular non-Apple tablet.
Let's see if Amazon's Kindle iPad knock off manages to gain traction. Amazon has the content store to rival iTunes, and the cash to sell at a loss, but the Amazon Android marketplace is still a bad joke compared to the Apple Appstore.
Oh, Steve Jobs' other baby, PIXAR, really do make movies, and very successful ones too.
So, I have looked, but I can't touch. And I predict that the new Kindle will only work with the Amazon Appstore.
On the plus side, I see there are nearly 16,000 apps now though, which is progress. It is still pretty poor in comparison to Apple.
Remember that almost none of these apps have been written to run well on a tablet. They are nearly all phone apps
If your developer in Apple App store and your app is in the top 100, you get to share of 61% of the Sales, if your app is in the 99.97% (the rest of the apps) you get to share the rest of the 39% of the Sales. I did remove the 37% of the free apps, from the 500000 apps, it made it easier to do the math.
As in there was this egotistical leader with a large force, and was trying to take control of Europe?
When his enemies started to mass, he sought to defeat them by attacking them piecemeal before they grouped up.
He was being held in battle by one force which stopped him before he got to Brussels when, in the end, he was stopped by the Germans.
Could be a very prescient statement
Samsung, Motorola and the other big names have managed to get serious traction for Android in the mobile phone space because people already know they need a phone and Android handsets are very competitive. Conversely I think they're doing much more poorly with tablets because you have specifically to want one (because carriers aren't generally subsidising them so you're not very close to getting one either way) and people don't necessarily think they want a tablet. Apple's marketing machine here is a benefit because it isn't saying "you want us not them" so much as "here's a new type of thing you want".
I think Amazon are going to distinguish themselves by significantly reducing the price, by adapting a more sophisticated marketing drive than "you know those tablet things that Apple are on about, well we make one too you know" and by really promoting the thing through the single most popular storefront in the world today.
In a year it'll be Apple v Amazon. And supposing Amazon have forked Android and are paying Google nothing, they have neither the interest nor the legal right to attach the Android brand to their tablet so I don't foresee much of a halo effect.
"It's just Apple isn't after the others yet ..."
they are. Apple also got a temporary injunction against some small, practically unknown, reseller called Jay-Tech. They sold some cheapo 7-inch 2.x Android tablets.
Anyone still arguing that Apple is going after Samsung because the devices look too similar has to be barmy. Or blind. Or whatever. Unless, of course, the typical Apple-customer can't tell the difference between devices of completely different sizes and materials.
I haven't bought an Apple product since the release of the 160Gb iPod Classic. Not being a touch sucker, I didn't buy shitloads of apps to tie me to the platform and sold it on to my housemate who promptly wrecked it like all her other electronics. Now I don't have to worry about giving Apple a cent more of my money. Apple really fail at keeping non-fanbois in the loop with actions like this.
However looking at Jobs' bank balance he doesn't seem that bothered that quite a large number of people aren't buying his shiny toys as there are plenty that are happy to take part.
Similar to the fact that I'm a veggie and so is my wife, but some how MaccyD's and BK are still in buisness despite our personal stand against meat eating!
Well, the little franchise in Australia called the Pancake Parlour managed to make Ronald change his pancakes to hotcakes ...
and a little burger joint called Burger King in South Australia managed to make Burger King change their name to hungry jacks.
Go little guys.. but not Apple in this case
...then there'd only be one car manufacturer (four wheels and moves from A to B), one washing machine machufacturer (box that cleans clothes), one microwave oven manufacturer (box to heat food), etc....
This whole thing is just stupid. Not to mention the stifling of innovation.
I remember a few years ago, Apple used to make stuff, some of it was overpriced and overdesigned (laptops), some of it was really pretty good (iPods) and some of it no-one cared about either way. I had no strong opinions, just valued the beauty of choice. I just cannot understand this legal approach - now they're the big dog they're throwing their litigation toys out of the pram every 5 mins. This is making money only for the legal profession - and presumably p!issing off a lot of potential customers. A senior judge needs to throw this sh!t out of court and put a lid on it before every damn tech manufacturer sues everyone else for manufacturing anything even vaguely rectangular with a screen. I sure won't be buying Apple (obviously this boycott will hurt them massively....)
"A senior judge needs to throw this sh!t out of court and put a lid on it"
Or the incompetent, competition-stifling judges who award some of this bs (over-broad patent, trademark, copyright nonsense) need to be thrown out on their asses.
Can't we vote this current system out?
...in the late 80's (maybe 90's my memory is not that great) Apple spent many millions trying taking Microsoft to court claiming it inverted WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse Pointer) user interface.
After about 3 years of claims & counter claims, Xerox sent someone to court. They proved they had invented the original systems some years previous to any Mac, and had all the documents to prove it. Only then did Apple withdraw they case completely.
Apple has always spent many times more money on lawyers that R&D and will probably continue to do so until it goes broke. It is worth remembering until they "invented" the iPod, Apple was on the verge of going broke, as sales of Mac's were to low to cover the lawyers fees let along the cost of R&D for hardware and software.
No, Xerox lost because it waited to long to file a suit the statute of limitations had expired. That was back in 1990 and they wanted $150 million dollars. They could just cash in their shares for more than that as they licensed the GUI to Apple for 100,000 shares @ $10.
'After about 3 years of claims & counter claims, Xerox sent someone to court. They proved they had invented the original systems some years previous to any Mac, and had all the documents to prove it. Only then did Apple withdraw they case completely.'
No. Xerox's case was dismissed as they didn't have one since they had licensed the GUI to Apple. Xerox didn't invent the "original systems" either, that was the done by luminaries like Doug Engelbart and Ivan Sutherland who had been influenced by individuals such as Vannevar Bush. While the courts found in favour of Microsoft, they settled with Apple in 1997 with cross licensing deals and Microsoft's purchase of $150 million of non-voting stock, however this was in no small part due to Microsoft's illegal use of QuickTime components. But hey, changing the facts and making shit up is a much better way of making your trite rhetoric valid.
'It is worth remembering until they "invented" the iPod...' In much the same way Google "invented" Android then, or Microsoft "invented" the Kinect.
Of course all tablets will look a bit like an iPad in the same way all SLR cameras, five-door family hatchbacks, headphones, airliners, ICBMs and yachts look similar, it's a matter of form following function.
For exactly the same reason all very thin laptops will look at bit like a MacBook Air.
Apple needs to be slapped down and hard over this bullshit.
Tablets have certain dimensions and characteristics that are dictated by the form factor. i.e. a 10" screen, the main board, battery, speakers etc. dictate its dimensions and so forth. Then there is stuff like the styling, trim etc. which has nothing to do with the form and is purely aesthetic.
Samsung sailed too close to the wind and gave Apple an excuse to throw lawsuits at them. There are lots of tablets out there, ranging from generic to extremely distinct. There is no reason they should resemble an iPad except in their basic form.
"Tablets have certain dimensions and characteristics that are dictated by the form factor."
Haven't we already established that in the "evidence" that Apple presented in the Netherlands court, they had doctored the photos to disguise the fact that the Samsung has a different form factor than the ipad?
Downvote all you like but the simple fact of this matter is Samsung brought heat on themselves here. Tablets from various high end manufacturers - Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony, Motorola, Asus, Acer etc. mysteriously manage not to look nothing like an iPad. That the Galaxy Tab does why it's being sued. While I really dislike Apple, it really isn't hard to see what their beef is here.
...Motorola were also mentioned in the German injunction against Samsung. Take a look at the Apple's design 'patent' that was used in the injunction: a rectangle with curved corners and a black bezel with no buttons. Would anyone really consider that more square corners is enough of a difference? I doubt it so what are manufacturers meant to do? As it stands Samsung are the first but they won't be the last if they lose.
They should just overturn it since other companies already had "mobile computing devices" around before the design registration, with slate form factor including those free of rows of buttons and with rounded corners. Its nothing new or distinguishable about it. Not even that it had mobile hardware and embedded/mobile OS. They just released it when the hardware was good and software had converged from being a lot of custom rolled mess. They should have credit as LG as well for producing nice screens in the seizes suitable for tablets though. First mass market success doesn't make you king of squares though. But neither is there any confusion between Apple's products and Samsung's which makes it ridiculous to sue for the looks.
Are you totally retarded? HP's TouchPad looks way more like the iPad then any of the competitors in form. But they also made rectangular Slate PC's with rounded corners before Apples design registration application.... Neither did Apple go after any (other) Slate Tablet PC-makers that have had products around on the market before the design registration yet it claims it owns the design for. Side by side there is no confusion between the two (Galaxy tab/iPad 2) http://i2.phonearena.com/images/reviews/93385-image/Galaxy-Tab-10.1-vs-iPad-2-Design-17.jpg Heres a 2003 HP TC1100 btw, http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/gallery/hptr1105/Image00021_small.jpg Compaq TC1000 is basically the same and won several design awards before Apples application for registration. This: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Cybook_gen1.jpeg is how a 98/2003 era ebook-reader with 4:3 10" touchscreen and a browser looked like too. On PowerPC-hardware. Plenty of prior art and no confusion makes your claim ridiculous, it's not about copying or coming to close, btw also look at how the Archos worked before the release of the iPad (they had already moved to android on the 5 inch before ipad was announced, they moved the 7" to Android in May 2010 following that). You could use their 2008 era design (like the 7") just fine without the stylus.
Funny thing is is that at a realy cool Korean coffee shop in Japantown, some 80% of the Koreans I saw with hand phones had iPhones. Possibly they have them because AT&T has international SIM card deals in the USA and ties to a Korea-based business partner, or Koreans here just don't care what happens to Samsung. I suppose that is their right, since i don't give frackall about apple especially since it's not just Samsung being damaged, but many other companies, too.
Apple, this is your OWN FUCKING FAULT! You build a jizzable whissable tablet (nothing new), sex it up with good looks and responsive software (expected, not innovative), but overprice the shit so FANBOIS and FANGURLS will feel annointed or privileged. Lots of people who have NO BUSINESS buying gadetry will give up toilet paper and vitamins to get an i-something. But, those who will not give up TP and vitamins want SOME KIND OF TABLET, and so lower-tier companies are trying to fil the void. And, what does apple do? It plays the anti-competitive card.
Again, Samsung, PUBLICLY REVISE THE SAMSUNG SyncMaster 206BW, shave off the back, and resize it and call it a tablet. State you are putting tablet guts into an LCD, sans physical keyboard. SAY you will incrementally revise this device until the consumers resume purchasing it. Make only 1,000 of each so your losses won't be massive. Then, when the feedback from customers and tentative buyers dictates your path, RUN WITH IT.
That do much more than Apple just boycott Apple, e.g. Samsung should just cease all memory, cpu etc sales to Apple NOW!, Sony should remove all music + movies of theirs from iTunes and stop manufacturing their batteries....
Seems simple enough seeing as Apple doesn't actually make anything.
that would be anti-competitive and leads to antitrust suits, which is far worse that Apple suing them. At least there is a chance that they'll win/settle. Blocking Apple by refusing to sell them part that are sold to other parties is illegal.
"Sony should remove all music + movies of theirs from iTunes..." Why would they want to do that? It makes them far much more money than it does Apple.
I've never quite understood that part of anti-trust law. If I make a component X and I hate your f*cking guts why should I be compelled to sell it to you? I don't understand that. If I'm a one-man-band (Samsung obviously aren't) and this widget X is a must-have surely I can refuse to sell it to you - plenty of businesses have exclusive deals between them, variable pricing, etc and I could state that I can't supply you because I don't have the capacity. Just seems weird to remove that freedom.
It wouldn't be anti-competitive. Maybe breaking a contract somewhere, but, for future products there's no law that says Samsung must supply Apple with components. There's no law that says Samsung have to even bid to be an Apple supplier.
Let's face it, there are only a small number of manufacturers in the world who can produce touch screens to the spec laid down by Apple. Samsung are one of them. If they stop supplying, then the market gets smaller, if LG decided to forget to bid, are there that many suppliers who can step up and produce the required quantity to the required consistency of quality? If not, Apple could well have to wait a while before producing the next iPad, whilst a new supplier builds a plant, and then perfects the manufacturing process. That may or may not hurt Samsung leng--term, but, I'd guess the iPad screens are only a small part of the vast array of electrical components they make, and seeing the company that put through numerous court cases squirm as they explain to the rabid fanbois that they will have to wait a year or two for the next shiny, would probably be worth every penny in lost profits.
@thesykes: No, it would be antitrust. This isn't a point of opinion; it is statute. "Let's face it, there are only a small number of manufacturers in the world who can produce touch screens to the spec laid down by Apple. Samsung are one of them. If they stop supplying, then the market gets smaller, if LG decided to forget to bid, are there that many suppliers who can step up and produce the required quantity to the required consistency of quality?" That is pretty much the description of a cartel; and there is the antitrust suit. As both LG and Samsung make mobile phones and fondle slabs it could be reasonably argued that action would be leveraging their position in the screen manufacturing market to have a direct influence on Apple's ability to compete in the smartphone/fondle slab market. Which is illegal.
"...and seeing the company that put through numerous court cases squirm as they explain to the rabid fanbois that they will have to wait a year or two for the next shiny, would probably be worth every penny in lost profits." Wow. Apple are just another business, like Samsung or Ford or Kellogg's or Marks and Spencer and they exist to make money. Like other businesses, they will defend their revenue streams with all the legal tools that are available to them. It is difficult to deny Apple's motion is valid because the other Android manufacturers have managed to make devices that don't look too similar to Apple's, and all the strawmen in the world aren't going to change that. Is it similar enough to cause confusion? I don't believe so, but then like you, I'm no copyright or patent lawyer, so my opinion, like yours, counts for nought in the real world.
One question that I think I can answer myself; I have a Samsung TV, digital decoder and DVD player but I sometimes use a Mac, am I doing something wrong and should I be picking sides too? No. Why? Because I'm a fucking adult.
No one supplies apple direct except foxconn and finished product. As stated Apple dont make anything.
Samsungs contracts will be for supply of components to Foxconn and licensed to apple for the use in ipad / iphone screens.
Its all BS I love my galaxy S and next phone will be an S2 or S3. I can spot a iphones a mile away and I know there differences visually. yeah thee sort of the same but so is Sony and LG phones. The judges need to put there glasses back on and look properley and lets have some competition to get better products else we all gonna be stuck with the same 1 product.
Apple fabs their Apple A4 and A5 ARM SoC (application processor) directly at and tight partnering with Samsung, without them currently no Apple products on mobile ARM architecture would come out of the factory. They can't switch for standard Samsung parts from a distributor / Foxconn / other third party, directly and it's still some time off before they can produce chips at TSMC, they still supply a large share of the NAND in these devices as well as the new flash drive (controller and NAND-flash memory) in MBAir as well as possibly other components (HDD's for Macbooks and so on, think they are currently on Hitachi though). Screens are LG all the way from phones to 27" iMac and Cinema Display though. LG sure won't be happy if Apple goes after their customers though.
Apple's view of the world is actually very restricted/restrictive, and only the consumer loses out.
Apple Fanboi- twats that are willing to pay over the odds for stuff with an Apple logo on it and all other sensible consumers that could buy ceaper more powerful/less restricted kit from the other manufacturers (when they finally get their stuff out and stop trying to profetier from the price points that Apple set.)
Remeber, the only significant proprietory parts in an iPad are the case and the battery. Most other parts are made by other manufacturers and are essentially generic (even the all important CPU). Oh yes and the software.
So, the Battery, case and OS are the only real differntiating factors. Apples must be shitting itself that other OEMs can do everything that they can do, and maybe even better - hence all the patent trolling.
IF YOU CAN'T BEAT TEM IN THE MARKET, SHUT EM DOWN WITH PATENTS.
Hence my erlier comment: FUCK APPLE, they are seriously controlling MY ability to buy decent kit at a proper price.
Come on OEMs - FIGHT BACK.
"Apple's view of the world is actually very restricted/restrictive, and only the consumer loses out."
That is certainly possible,, but your post certainly doesn't explain why that is.
"Apple Fanboi- twats..."
<irony> Okay -- I can see that you are going to be presenting a well-reasoned, dispassionate argument... </irony>
"...all other sensible consumers (...) could buy ceaper more powerful/less restricted kit from the other manufacturers..."
In all fairness, the vast majority of consumers don't give a rodent's rectum about how "restricted" their choice are. This is why Kindles and Nooks sell, even though tablets and smartphones can present digital books and do much more, and why car dealers' repair shops do big business. The guy that LIKES to work on his car may appreciate the freedom of going to to Auto Zone and buying parts that don't have the car manufacturer's name and specific part number on them. The average car owner just wants the problem fixed, and if all there were were parts from Ford, or GM, or *.manufacturer, it would make absolutely NO difference to them. Seriously, however much you may try to spin it it's not about "Apple Fanboi- twats" -- the MAJORITY of consumers care fuck-all for "restricted"... get over it.
"So, the Battery, case and OS are the only real differntiating factors. Apples must be shitting itself that other OEMs can do everything that they can do, and maybe even better - hence all the patent trolling."
...Except that, thus far, none of the others seem to actually TRYING to do anything better, but rather going on the "If we build it, they will come," mentality -- that all they need to do is build a tablet -- ANY tablet, and they'll rake in the money.
Build a tablet that plays any and all media better than the competition and hassle-free right out of the box and advertise the hell out of that fact. Make a tablet that wirelessly, seamlessly, and invisibly connects to your home/work network and lets you control your computer, allowing you to do remotely everything that you can do on your desktop and market it to the high heavens. Make a tablet that runs longer and lets you do whatever you do longer on a single battery charge and push that capability so that everyone who might want to buy a tablet KNOWS that without having to search the geek sites and pore through tables of comparative specs.
In short, either do everything BETTER than everyone else, or pick something that you think will be your strength and push, push, PUSH so that the consumer who wants what you do best KNOWS it and WANTS it! At this point, none of the tablet makers seem to be building either of those products or, if they are, are not letting Joe Average-Consumer that they are loudly, clearly, and REPEATEDLY enough to overcome the iFactor. I mean, at least HALF of the manufacturers talking tablets are supposed to be experts in the Consumer Electronics market -- Toshiba, Sony, Samsung, et al -- and WHERE are their marketing campaigns...? Nowhere, as far as I've seen. Apple advertises the HELL out of their products, and pretty much always has, and I'm seeing no billboards for *.manufacturer's tablets, no TV ads, no mass-market magazine ads... nothing.
The problem is NOT that Apple is stifling competition, it's that the other manufacturers seem to think that being "just as good" as the other offerings without necessarily being BETTER should be sufficient -- after all, it's basically worked for them for thirty years in the telephone/computer markets, and they think that it will work in the tablet market. It may yet, but right now, it isn't and if they don't realize that, then they will fail.
"...could buy ceaper more powerful/less restricted kit from the other manufacturers (when they finally get their stuff out and stop trying to profetier from the price points that Apple set.) (...)
Hence my erlier comment: FUCK APPLE, they are seriously controlling MY ability to buy decent kit at a proper price."
And HERE'S where your whole "FUCK APPLE" screed falls apart... Apple is doing nothing to "...seriously control (your) ability to buy decent kit at a proper price," They are selling THEIR kit at THEIR price. You should, rather, be saying "FUCK TOSHIBA", "FUCK SAMSUNG", "FUCK ACER:", "FUCK <ManufacturerName>" for not driving prices down, or selling whatever it is you want at the price you want. I mean, it sounds pretty clear from your posts that you wouldn't buy an Apple product ANYWAY, so saying "fuck them" for successfully playing their game, rather than saying "fuck them" about the OTHER manufacturers -- whose products you MIGHT buy -- for playing Apple's game rather than CHANGING the game, just seems really childish and silly.
Really. Unlike the court in this case, my memory is slightly better than that of a 9-year old.
The tablet computer is as old as... Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey", published in 1968. I know, I was 11 years-old when the book and movie came out. Apple founder Steve Jobs, who is 2 years older than me, should have an even clearer memory of it.
"When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers ... Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him. ... the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort."
Of course this had been mentioned by others before, and I think has been submitted by Samsung in at least one of its responses to Apple in the multiple cases the latter has brought against the former on this issue.
Apple should have been laughed out of court on this one, as should anyone who claims the intellectual property rights to concepts like this that have been in the public domain for *decades*. Unfortunately, ignorance of prior art like this seems to have been epidemic among patent authorities for at least a generation -- to the point that you have to wonder what alternate universe they grew up in.
...I intend to sue the arse off him.
It was ME who first wore jeans and a teeshirt and white shoes. Who the hell does he think he is?
He's copied me down to all the fine details such as two legs and two arms, one head and some spectacles.
(P.S. I'm younger than him, but prior art doesn't seem to mean much these days, so off to court I go!)
Q: Why did Clinton shag Monica Lewinsky in the white house?
A: Because he could.
Q: Why does Jobs sue everyone?
A: Because he can.
Jobs has offered millions the pleasures of usable gadgets and created a whole new ecosystem of touch interfaced gagdets that people are happy to pay for and buy. (and immensely usable- although I have none of them yet)). Where were the Samsungs, Nokias, Motorolas, Sony et al when Jobs was relentlessly pushing his newfound USABLE products? Bet they were happy with the status quo and enjoyed creaming the market for what it was worth, created by Nokia! Innovation ? Not much can be said.
So why complain when you enter another dogs territory and he barks? Part of the game guys.
Get on with your lives and enjoy the show.
Realdolls that look like Jobs, and then desecrate his image? He and his goon army might demand all the sales and pre-sales inquiry records, and swathes of people may fall into trouble just for daring to express impropriety of some sort.
OTOH, I would imagine that SOME people would just order the doll to sit him in a corner, voluntarily, in probably larger numbers than those coerced (for fear of punishment or execution) into hanging up pictures of "Dear Leader"
the iPhone 5 is very similar to the Galaxy but has less features and costs more, so obviously Apple are desperate to stop the superior cheaper device from Samsung hitting the market as it may reveal just how overpriced Apple are. Underhand tactics are nothing new for Apple, but all it does is gain more disdain for Apple and more sympathy for Samsung - I don't want or need a tablet, but I'm tempted to get a Galaxy just to counter 'the big evils' petty attitude toward it's competitors. Clearly Apple are scared of competition and will stoop to any length to avoid competing fairly.
That said, most tablet are superior to the iPad, better, faster, cheaper - all of which shows the true nature of Apple, ripping off all it's own customers. So glad I grew out of Applism - it's a nasty brain-numbing trait which effects your visual, thought, and rational processes.
Quite ironic to hear that from the Samsung guy.
After all, that's close to what Jobs said before launching the iPad, given that the iPad wasn't teh first tablet, coming a few years after Microsoft's attempt. Feeble as it may have been, it was there and Jobs just made it better (much like the iPod).
as the rest of us, you might be advised to reread the relevant paragraph :
«"Yes, yes, Apple makes an iPad, but does it make a movie?" Sony CEO Howard Stringer asked in his presentation on Wednesday. "We will prove that it's not who makes the tablet first who counts but who makes it better."»
As can be seen from the above, it wasn't «the Samsung guy» who made the comment. If you feel that Mr Jobs made tablets better with the iPad, then you are certainly free to put your money where your mouth is and purchase one - the issue here, however, is that «Mr Jobs» Apple is trying to prevent another firm from presenting what they believe to be a better version of the tablet to the public and us from purchasing it. Even if Samsung's version did resemble the iPad with respect to external dimensions - which, as we have seen from the doctored photos Apple's lawyers found necessary to present to the court, is not the case, under the hood the apparatus is very different and Apple is here making itself guilty of malicious litigation. The case should be thrown out of court and Apple fined a hefty sum, pour encourager les autres....
When I was child, we were taught the phrase «If you invent a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door», in order to promote a positive attitude towards innovation. Now, it would seem, those who invent a better product would find, instead of the world, court bailiffs beating a path to their doors to inform them that they have been sued because their product was packaged in a rectangle with rounded corners. If the current legal system - including but not restricted to patents (the issue in Germany is not one of patents, but of design registration) - then innovation will become more and more entangled in legal snares until it comes to an end. This may be in the interest of great corporations like Apple and their band of corporate lawyers, but it is definitely not in the interest of consumers and users....
I think that If most of the current tablet makers unite and gang up on apple by reducing their pricing to razor thin margins, then they will effectivly deny apple an ability to charge inflated product premium pricing. It will lose money was wasted on lawyers, and be forced to just cope with the market on merit.
That said, I am not at all verse in international and national business law or anti-competition laws. Maybe it is the case that they CANNOT band together, even though apple has some 69% of the market.
I think much of apple's fear stems from the likelhood that these non-ipad vendors will end up competing on price, and if they do undercut apple, apple wil lose $hitload$ of money it does not want to be 'deprived' of wresting. With next to no competition, those who crave expensive tablets will have no choice but to pay. If the Samsung, Acer, ASUS, Lenovo, Motorola and other tablets drop to, say, $425 max pricing, and curb expenses to manage to eke out a profit long enough to force apple's hand, they will also wedge apple and force it to come up with a product strategy rather than a litigation strategy.
THIS is a way to legally blugeon apple one way or another, either in court or by warchest accumulation with the apparent ability to make apple think twice about selfish and obtuse lawsuits.
Anti-trust? Anti-competitive? Or, anti-apple-assault-initiation?
To shamlessly quote myself from my immediately above post:
"think that If most of the current tablet makers unite and gang up on apple by reducing their pricing to razor thin margins, then they will effectivly deny apple an ability to charge inflated product premium pricing. It will lose money was wasted on lawyers, and be forced to just cope with the market on merit."
Are the floodgates going to open up and make apple hop rocks to avoid being wash away?
Yes, apple is evil. It won't allow its competitors even a level playing field. Go figure.
It's the stupid outdated laws, out of touch with what we commoners refer to as "common sense", is what enables an "evil" (=for profit) to do what it does.
I, being a geek, dislike the way Apple does stuff (the walled garden, loss of choice etc), but I get it. It sells. I am not against Apple making good profit by selling themed rides, fashion accessories, appliances. I like the design of its notebooks, the current Air is a good device (first one sucked big time, second one was almost there).
But stifling -not innovation, Samsung hardly innovated anything for tablets- but freedom of choice and competition, using the laws that are supposed to safeguard them.
I'd have bought an ipad long ago, if not for:
- dependance on itunes :big PITA
- no Flash, no intermediate interpreters : Flash is necessary for the "full web" thing.
- no access to filesystem (even a sandboxed one): no longer a useful computing device (or an entertainment/media consumption one)
- no file transfer over wifi/bluetooth etc.
Now Android offers all these, even if a little bit rough around the edges occasionally. But it works, and quite nicely too. It is my current choice (but I always wait around for the second generation, kal-el in this instance).
Anyway. My choice.
If some vision or judgement-impaired judge is going to tell me I can't have it - because it looks like a competitors product, because it too is rectangular with rounded edges...
The laws do need some bludgeoning into shape. As for Apple? Kings of the hill come, and they go.. I remember this one time .. .. ....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019