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.
UK Judge Rules Samsung Tablets 'Not as Cool' as iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It looks like a blatant copy to me.... whatever judge!
Lately judges seem to rule on opinion rather then logic or law.
Lately judges seem to rule on opinion rather then logic or law.
No, it is a tablet PC, it works with a pen.
And you CAN attach a keyboard
I'm sure that you have found a lot of pictures from the side.
A hint, its name was TABLET not mini notebook
Yap, the judge said that Apple design was not original and that Samsung doesn't infringes Apple patents but it is in Samsung face, isn't it?
It looks like a blatant copy to me.... whatever judge!
Lately judges seem to rule on opinion rather then logic or law.
Butt hurt?
You have to inform better, you're starting to write ridiculous arguments.
A tablet PC doesn't have or need a keyboard.
I understand the ruling, but I don't think the comment that's garnering all of the attention was intended to be "sarcastic."
I've only read the excerpts of the opinion, however (though they seem to provide enough context for the "cool" comment to determine the intent).
are you really going to go this route to defend your position?
A tablet is a PC. even the modern day ones, running their own OS are really just hand held computers.
Trust on Apple fanboys to assume that if it's not an apple product, it's a PC.
Everything always has to be "thats so PC" or "PC v ______". i do not truly believe most of the people here, nor who listen to apple marketing know what a PC is, what it stands for or what the classification is
Nice quicky Definition everyone should understand;
"A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. "
Tablets fit perfectly into this. the whole "post PC" and "PC vs MAC" hoopla is nothing but marketing trash. Stop it.
As for samsung:
Samsung is the king copier in the digital world. I truly do believe that samsung copied a lot of elements from apple, especially in the packaging, marketing and 'external' things like the power brick and cable connector.
However, like the judge said, Once you start to make your devices super simple, you lose the ability to patent. there are so many ways to skin a cat. All these tablets are trying to be the smallest, thinnest, fastest tablet, while maintaining the smallest, lightest and simplest design.
What apple is effectively attempting to do is bar any other company from making a simplistic tablet as thin, light and small as possible, Thus skewing the market towards only their product. ESpecially a product that isn't entirely new. Apple borrowed a lot of concepts and design elements from the technologies of the past to get where they got as well.
The judge made the right decision here.
Last edited:
I did read the entire article. I read it on the bloomberg site. And the judge did say that. If you want to criticise someone for not reading the entire article, maybe you should criticise yourself.
according to Tumblr "flaw free" is the new cool
regarding the topic: my new "flaw free" iPad 3 is on its way to me
Flaw free...
Oh, you kookie kids and your crazy slang talk.
Land O'Goshen, who can understand you young whippersnappers today.
Not like in the old days...that was the bee knees!
Well, this time at least the ruling didn't go in their favor at all, they basically lost and their design IP got questionned big time. A lot of grounds for appeal, though I wonder on what points of law they might say the Judge erred.
----------
There were 50 examples of prior art, why are you putting so much focus on the TC1000 (which btw the court in the Netherland also cited as prior art) ? If it makes you happier, this was also cited :
He also used Wacom. There's no need to establish a specific spec here as to what is a tablet. The judge was comparing designs for electronic devices and found several designs that had elements of the front of the Apple 2004 design registration. That is all, you're over thinking things.
Interesting interpretation
While the coolness factor sounds silly, the rationale is sound...the competing product simply needs to be different enough to be considered not infringing. It doesn't matter if it's better, worse, or not as cool, just has to be different. So "not as cool" is a good reason since it means that the g-tab is different enough than the ipad.
Also, I am surprised that the devices used in star trek next generation were not cited as prior art...those things look just like ipads...(a flat rectangle with a screen).
While the coolness factor sounds silly, the rationale is sound...the competing product simply needs to be different enough to be considered not infringing. It doesn't matter if it's better, worse, or not as cool, just has to be different. So "not as cool" is a good reason since it means that the g-tab is different enough than the ipad.
Also, I am surprised that the devices used in star trek next generation were not cited as prior art...those things look just like ipads...(a flat rectangle with a screen).
The TC1000's keyboard is detachable and the TC1000 is usable as a plain tablet without a keyboard.
----------
As opposed to a tablet post-PC ? You're over-defining things.
The ruling is based not on "coolness", it's based on the fact that the judge found the similarities to only stem from the front of the device, when both are layed down on a table. He then cited close to 50 prior devices (prior to 2004, the date on the registration of Apple's design), including the Knight Ridder, the Ozolin and the TC1000, and used that to say Apple's design was not original.
He then proceeded to list the details on the side and back that differentiated the Galaxy Tab and the iPad and basically declared an informed user would have no trouble making the distinction from the back and sides between both devices.
Thus the Samsung Galaxy Tab is non-infringing based on these 2 premises, again :
- Unoriginal front design with plenty of prior art
- Difference in design for sides and back of the devices in question.
I read the article. Again, maybe you should have too. Coolness had really nothing to do with his decision, but it makes for some nice headlines.
I don't think you can mistake the two. While similar, one has an Apple logo on the back, the other the words Samsung.
if you want an iPad, you will not pick up a Samsung.
if you want an iPad, you will not pick up a Samsung.
The TC1100 was one of my first work computers and I loved the versatility of the dockable keyboard.
I think when people try to knock the TC1100 because it docked with a keyboard....
They should realise the iPad docks with a keyboard...
It certainly does, at least the way the headline reads.
Seems somewhat similar to this video: Not safe for work.