No, because they didn't have to. And the final injunction was not for the community design but for an unfair law. So the German case finally decided that Samsung didn't copy the iPad
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Alter VPN On Demand Behavior in iOS 6.1 and Later Due to VirnetX Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, because they didn't have to. And the final injunction was not for the community design but for an unfair law. So the German case finally decided that Samsung didn't copy the iPad
That's understandable.
Hopefully you can likewise understand that some people here felt that you tried to force your opinion ,while using an old and mostly refuted photo montage.
Others who have done that also had the grace to say, "Oops, I didn't realize the store wall thing was bogus".
People here like arguments that can be backed up.
You just don't "get it".
Apple had the idea first, and boy did they patent it. Samsung will never get away with blatantly copying Apple's original designs.
Just because some cheesy wall adapter looked like that first doesn't mean that Apple didn't invent it.
Let's see: You claim that the patent is invalid due to "a simple fact". And yet, Apple fully litigated this case and lost badly.
So which is it, are you just naive? Or are Apple's lawyers incompetent to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? Did they really fail to try to invalidate the patent? Or did they try, but fail? And why did they fail if it is all so easy and obvious?
Methinks that you are not sufficiently familiar with this patent and patent law in general. Personally, I'd trust Apple's army of lawyers before I'd trust some random internet poster on a topic as complex as patent law as applied to this particular patent.
But maybe it all as simple as you say. And maybe Apple's legal team needs you to save the day. Why not write them an email at least?
----------
Good luck with that. I'll bet you a beer that you never, ever receive a patent for that. Hell, I'll bet you a thousand dollars you never get a patent for that.
Very simple, indeed.
----------
Some people never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
----------
It has been obvious to millions of people over the course of thousands of years that cutting the beating heart out of a virgin would prevent volcanoes from erupting.
And they had a lot of evidence. They killed a virgin, and the volcano did not erupt. Indeed, it worked each and every time.
----------
In my opinion, opinions that have no basis in fact are worth less than nothing.
----------
The big Samsung logo is, IMO, a significant difference.
Another big difference is that Samsung uses the normal aspect ratio for the Tab, while Apple uses the old school "black and white TV" aspect ratio.
So yeah, I deny that. And so do the vast majority of the courts who have considered the question.
Apple invented rounded corners, too. Don't forget that.
You know, I give credit to Apple for popularizing minimalism in electronics. It's hard to deny they're one of the major influences in current tech fashion.
But there's this thing about minimalism. It's minimal. As in there's not much to it. If everyone is going for sleek and unadorned, eventually everyone's stuff is gonna look pretty similar. Like a tablet. It's a square screen with one button somewhere on the front. There's only so much you can do with that. I guess you could make the bezel red or blue or something, but who wants to do that? No one wants a red bezel. They want black or white. About the only thing a company can do to differentiate their products is by the bezel thickness. That's about it.
The end result is that just about every tablet is going to look like the iPad, the Galaxy Tab, the Nexus 7, the Surface RT. They're all squares with different aspect ratios. From the front, they all look about the same.
That's not good enough for some people though. They can't be happy their their favorite computer company is the leading influence in the industry. No. Only they should be the ones who can release a product that looks remotely similar to that. If someone else wants to release a tablet, it has to have 15 buttons on the front, because Apple has a product with just one button. If it looks the same at a casual glance, they'll freak out and start posting tons of pictures and blllaaarr copied, they should be sued for a billion dollars!
It's asinine and petty is what it all is.
Evidently the patent office in the US disagrees with that logic.
Lunacy of software patents?
Bingo. It's a profit center for lawyers, period.
It is impossible to write any code for any application now that doesn't intrude on numerous frivolous and silly patents. You would simply waste your entire budget in paralysis over patent issues rather than make a product.
Many of the patents are so vague or generalized that the trolls can use them to threaten suit in several different ways that you would not understand from a cursory reading anyway -- so why even read them?