If these two companies were my brood I'd give 'em a solid clip over the ears..
Seriously, acting like a bunch of petulant children..
The circus that is patent law needs to evolve.....
Samsung, which was hoping that it could kick of Australian sales of its Galaxy 10.1 Tab next week, has again been thwarted – this time by Australia’s High Court. As reported in The Register on November 30, the full bench of the Federal Court lifted the injunction against sale of the tablet. This order, however, was stayed …
I am hating Apple more and more with these stupid law suits - the only similarity between the 2 devices is that they're flat with a screen taking up most of the surface, apart from that the similarities are virtually none...
the iPad has a 4x3 screen, the Tab has 16x9
the iPad has 1 button, the Tab has 4
the iPad has 1 slot, the Tab has 3
if Apple wants to push that other tablets look too much like the iPad, then companies that were producing tablets before the iPad release should push to stop the sales of the iPad since they "copied" their design...
Apple are also complaining that Android "looks too much like iOS", well, it does until you actually USE the device - Android has so many features that iOS doesn't that the similarity stops at "you touch icons and the apps go full screen"
I REALLY want Nokia and Sony Ericsson to push against Apple on the iPhone because they copied the idea of having a mobile phone, putting a camera on the phone, making the camera having video recording (although Apple were late out of the gate on this one)
Apple seem to forget that competition breeds development - they want to be able to stagnate the market and let people believe that "good enough" is what a smart phone should be, rather than pushing the bleeding edge of development to show what is capable on these devices!!!
Does anyone, really, think any of this is actually good and worth pursuing? Honestly? Personal tastes and preferences for modern technology aside I can't honestly see how any of this, be it in Australia, Germany or anywhere else is genuinely worthy of merit. And not just this case either, most of the other ones brought in this area seem to be equally pointless. I will grant that the cases based on company X chasing after royalty payments from company Y may have some technical merit given that in most cases I have studied the underlying patents cover some fundamentally important areas but in most cases these too are also handled so badly as to paint one or both parties in a very bad light.
And yet here I am using a thoroughly despised operating system*, running on somebody's idea of hateful hardware**, which in turn is running a browser so horrible*** as to warrant instant death to anyone so dumb as to admit using it to post on a story about one company's complaint about another company's product looking too much like theirs. ****
Does the action of the company feed the flames or do the flames power the actions of the company?
*Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.
**HP dv6-2050eo laptop
****Downvote and flame away :-(
Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical, but why even bother having a court system? Patent law cases may as well be heard in an auction house - cut out the middlemen and victory goes to the highest bidder.
I'm waiting for the "Very High Court" and "Even Higher Court" to be instated so that there can be an extra couple of rounds of funding - sorry, "justice" - for the law firms.
Sadly The Apple Law Firm are feeding the beast rather than trying to reign it in, and will continue to do so as long as patent trolling proves more profitable than innovation. I don't know why they don't just patent "a method of dragging dubious patent claims through all levels of the court system" and be done with it.
Place the injunction on both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab.
Then neither can be sold until the case has run its course.
That would both make the conflicting parties think very hard before starting these stupid lawsuits.
At the same time it would prevent the plaintif from gaining an unfair sales head start over their competition by employing the courts as an anticompetitive weapon.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019