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.
Samsung Galaxy Tablet Ban in Australia Lifted, Apple to Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since this is a US forum, nope it is Apple v. Samsung ... American lawyers are lazy and omit the "s".
Since this is a US forum, nope it is Apple v. Samsung ... American lawyers are lazy and omit the "s".
Just to interrupt, the 'v' doesn't mean versus. I'll leave you to google what it really means...
For those that studied laws, it is always shown as A v. B
And for whoever said the back button was complicated on Android... All I can say is HUH?
You might as well say the Back button on Safari is too complicated for you. It does the same thing and better because it goes beyond the browser.
But I do admit that if you are used to iOS, it takes time to get used to the Back button but that is called habit and not a complicated function.
But going back to subject, congratz to Samsung and Australia, there was no winner here with the injuction, only losers.
And for whoever said the back button was complicated on Android... All I can say is HUH?
You might as well say the Back button on Safari is too complicated for you. It does the same thing and better because it goes beyond the browser.
But I do admit that if you are used to iOS, it takes time to get used to the Back button but that is called habit and not a complicated function.
But going back to subject, congratz to Samsung and Australia, there was no winner here with the injuction, only losers.
I can't speak for lawyers of Sony - that would simply be speculation.
I do believe in innovation.
I believe that products while performing the same function should have design, mechanical and electrical differences that set them apart from each other.
Innovation should touch every aspect of a product. This includes design which should not only serve to brand a product, but also serve to differentiate it from another product that performes the same function when placed side by side with a similar product. (e.g.:iPad and Galaxy tab). An average consumer should be able to look at the design of the products and easily pick out cues and say - "hey, that's an iPad and that's a Galaxy Tab"
I'm not a TV enthusiast, but I am a German engineering car enthusiast. From 100 yards I can tell the difference between an Audi, VW, BMW, and Mercedes - even if you make them all silver, black, white or pink. The design cues are tempered into each manufacturers look and feel to allow consumers to make those judgements.
That same pride in unique design should be adopted by technology manufacturers like Asus, Samsung, Motorola. Too often these companies look towards current leaders in the field and emulate rather than innovate. It would be refreshing for Samsung to temper their own look and feel into their products so that consumers can readily make that distinction. It will take time, money and some innovation, but that's the sweat and work that is needed for success. There is no easy street to success.
Innovation is the seed that drives business success - not emulation. The consumer in the end wins when multiple manufacturers foray in the same arena. It's that constant drive to "outdo" the competition that provides consumers with new technologies, informatics, and novel ways of "getting things done".
These legal issues that Samsung is facing due to Galaxy Tab could all but be avoided had they taken the time to develop their own unique Tablet product through design/aesthetic innovation. They are leveraging second player advantage, they have no risks, the market has been penetrated, the market has been established, and a familiar product (iPad) is available. What they failed to do was establish their brand through design innovation to separate it through look and feel from the iPad. A crucial step.
Lastly, for someone like Steve Jobs, his attention to detail and design would allow him to see the difference between the two products at 10 feet.
It all depends on the kind of person you are: some people are unaware of subtle differences between products, while some people are very in tune to those differences.
Last edited:
What you wrote makes a lot of sense but as repeated many times on this thread, this injunction is not about physical design.
Also when a consumer buys the product, the product is usually in a retail box, the Tab box clearly says Samsung Galaxy Tab on it in big letters, not easy to confuse even the dumbest consumers out there.
Last edited:
That is news to me. As far as I know, it does stand for "versus" which is Latin for "against." Would be funny if the legal system based on Roman law used a different word for something used for over 2000 years in the same context and starting with the same letter.
Wikipedia says you are wrong: Click here!
That is news to me. As far as I know, it does stand for "versus" which is Latin for "against." Would be funny if the legal system based on Roman law used a different word for something used for over 2000 years in the same context and starting with the same letter.
Wikipedia says you are wrong: Click here!
versus (vs) or (v.)
Literally "in the direction". Mistakenly used in English as "against" (probably from "adversus"), particularly to denote two opposing parties, such as in a legal dispute or a sports match.
Instead of looking through long list.
It's difficult to understand because it's not by Apple. Seriously though, my Windows Phone 7 has the same similar back button behavior. It's quiet handy to launch one app, check on something quickly, and then go back to the previous app with just ONE press.
You're asking as if I'm the only person who has that opinion. It's not just Android. My experiences with back button on WindowsPhone 7 were very similar.
When sometimes in the browser and I press back, it goers out of the app into the previous app. How do I know about this change? iOS has a perfect back button action which takes you back to your previous view. It is consistent and you know the action response. In both Android and WP7 things can get messy. Sometimes, when you wish to go to the previous application, you would need to press the back button a number of times. As I said, its just confusing and frustrating.
If you feel I'm biased, no issues; I wish Android had a software level implementation of the back button. These days a lot of applications implement it and its less confusing than before.
the back button is never used for switching between applications.
The back button on Android performs differently depending on application (exit an application, or go back to previous screen of the SAME application) but it is never used for switching between application.
You need to press and hold the HOME button for 2/3 seconds that shows a list of recently used application. you simply tap on the application. It's not "back" button.
Money couldn't buy the sort of publicity Samsung is getting out of this. Provided the ban stays lifted, I'd imagine things have actually worked in Samsung's favour.
It kind of reminds me of how people protesting against a film or event or something only end up providing so much free publicity for what they're trying to stop people seeing. Some people probably didn't even know they wanted a Galaxy Tab before they found out it was banned!
You're dead wrong and the "Android was only a Blackberry clone before iPhone"-claim has been refuted so many times. Android seen in the photos has everything to do with the released Android, it was just an early prototype which the photos show running on a non-touch device with a keyboard.
Your last sentence is just laughable. Android is not a device, it's a mobile operating system that is being designed to work with whatever form factor the device manufacturer decides.
What some people don't understand is that an idea is a dime a dozen. Its the implementation of that idea thats hard to do, and I'll give Apple credit for great implementation. Just like how Apple wasn't the first to do a lot of things, they were just better at implementing them, they shouldn't doggedly fight Samsung because they hold some silly patent that said they were the first to think of an idea, much of it not even very revolutionary. I believe this particular case has to do with gestures, and its not even anything innovative, something really plain, maybe swipe or something similar. Stop defending Apple. Of course they believe they own every ideas out there. You shouldn't believe it yourselves.
Because I'm using FACTS. Suprising eh, when you conflated your opinions with facts-I chose to disclaim the FACTS, not opinion disguised as fact. Nice try though.
Nice strawman, but allow me to retort anyway: So what? That Apple was founded in 1976 would prove that Apple didn't copy from some company that released a similar product FOUR YEARS later, just like Android didn't copy from iOS which was released years after Android, Inc was established. This is especially true given the interface model for both phones was previously seen on other devices (i.e. Treo).
Thanks for reinforcing my point - the groundwork was done long before iOS came on the scene.
And of course, once a developer completes a project they forget everything they learned there! /sarcasm
Thanks for admitting an Android device was demo'd before iOS even released...three years later (neat how you conveniently left out the timeline aspect of that).
That Physically/visually it was very different (what two Android phones look identical today, physically?) is irrelevant - it was running the first (albeit Alpha) version of the Android OS...3 years before release of iOS. Regardless of physical appearance (I can run Android on a iPhone - does mean Android is now somehow different because the physical device is different?), the initial claim was that Android was copied from iOS. Once again the facts of history demonstrate this simply can't be true, since an Android OS was demo'd before iOS was released. And I seriously doubt the Android developers got their hands on Apples stuff beforehand-Apple is very careful to protect their IP (and rightfully so!).
This is completely wrong. So the keyboard-based Androids I see all the time (Droid, Droid Pro, Droid 2, Droid 3) are a figment of my imagination then? From the beginning they intended it to be touch screen in addition to the keyboard. Palm had demonstrated how effective a touch screen could be - they knew they had to have that, but a keyboard also seemed crucial (note how the Treo came with a keyboard...wonder if they "stole" that idea from Android?). You must be conflating Android with Blackberry.
The Treo was both touch screen and had a keyboard (unlike the Palm devices in the 90's that were touch screen ONLY). It really was the first commercially successful device to integrate both (hell, it even had a stylus and could support Graffiti).
If the Android developers copied anyone, it would've been the Treo that was in trade mags in the late 90's, and released the first version (albeit without an integrated phone) in something like 2000/2001.
It's clear given the timelines, that it wouldn't have been possible for Android developers to copy from Apple - Android announced their product years before Apple released theirs, and even demo'd it two years before iOS release. Again, given that we know how protective Apple is (and any company like them) of their IP, do you really mean to contend that someone leaked iOS to the Android folks before iOS was even released?.
Keep in mind again that these developers had been working on this handheld OS since the late 90's, so you need to show that the Apple code was somehow stolen back then...oh, that's right, Apple wasn't using Linux for even the desktop then! MAC OS 9 (pre-Linux) was released in '99, and Linux didn't show up in OS-X for another three years in 2002!
Granted Apple was certainly in dev with Linux then, but again, they protect their IP very carefully.
Sorry, but the timeline simply does not support your claim that Android is a copy of iOS. If anything I'd say the reverse was more likely to be possible, since Android demo'd years before. (not that I believe for an instant, or am inferring this is true - Apple no more copied from Android than Android copied from Apple, initially. Today they both watch what the other does, and respond accordingly).
Also, given this very thread, do you believe for an instant that if your claim was supportable, Apple wouldn't be in court suing for IP infringement?
Last edited:
Which ultimately begs the question: if apple is allowed to take existing ideas, and implement them better - why cannot the same be said for Google? Undoubtedly, some do find Googles implementation better -- that it is different should be out of discussion, really.
(General post, not directed at you; you seem sensible).
Sorry, I misspoke, it uses a *Nix core (potato, potahto). Nix is Nix...the point being when they changed architecture.
My reference had 2002 as a release...
Last edited:
Uhhh...you do understand that OS-X uses a BSD core, don't you?
The fact that you don't know this makes you not credible.
What do you mean here ? OS X uses a Mach microkernel, some parts of the BSD userland and some GNU userland tools. It adheres to the SUS and passed the test suite in order to be registered officially as Unix '03 compliant by the Opengorup, holders of the Unix trademark.
Apple is not a holder of a SysV copyright license.
And what does all this have to do with Linux ? Linux is Linux, a monolothic kernel that is sometimes paired with a GNU userland, sometimes not. It is not compliant to the SUS, nor can it be called Unix as it did not pass the testsuite provided by the Opengroup. It also does not use any of the SysV code, as no one that holds the copyright to this code has provided it for use in Linux.
What does "Nix is Nix" mean ? What is Nix anyway ?
