It is being manufactured by Samsung, but it was developed by Apple. Enjoy.
Innovation? Doesn't sound like Samsung for me...
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 Wins Injunction Blocking Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is being manufactured by Samsung, but it was developed by Apple. Enjoy.
Innovation? Doesn't sound like Samsung for me...
That's not a Samsung store. That's a 3rd party retailer in Italy selling phones.
About the A4/A5, Apple obviously didn't design the ARM Cortex CPUs used in their SOC design. Apple designs the SOC, but not the CPU and GPU.
And that´s why is stupid saying that Samsung is not innovative because makes the SOC designed by Apple and Apple is innovative because they have designed the SoC using a CPU and GPU from 3rd party.
And without forgetting that Samsng has a long history of developing SoC's
If this is sarcasm, then you should make it more clear. If you actually believe this, then each of their 220,000 employees would gladly slap you for being stupid.
Not because they cut corners, but because they made them round
Well said and something else to consider.
Should Apple lose these cases against Samsung they would be liable for the market loss from Samsung, which many investment circles were/are quite worried over as it could be very, very costly for Apple.
So, I think what these case rulings are starting to show is that Apple wasn't just making wild allegations of patent infringement, nor overly broad allegations. They went for something very targeted and something they ultimately felt they could win.
Steve Jobs said many times that he regretted the early days of Apple not defending the company's IP very rigorously and that they would not repeat those mistakes again.
That doesn't apply to patents, where waiting sometimes makes more sense because it can lead to bigger settlements.
It does apply to trademarks once granted.
Ironically, going too fast backfired on Apple when they were trying to get the trademark on "Multi-Touch". By applying so quickly after the iPhone came out, they could not possibly prove that it had been in use long enough that the average person associated it with only the iPhone.
In fact, the trademark examiner commented in the final rejection that if Apple had simply waited a mandated five years since their first usage to apply for the trademark, it would probably have been automatically granted. Apple was too impatient in its attempt to grab the name before it had established a secondary meaning.
I didn't question their dominance in the supplying parts in the industry; I questioned their claim at being "innovative." Big difference. Did you know that Microsoft is the largest software supplier in the world? Does that mean they are innovative?
Who did Samsung copy when they were making some of the most advanced televisions in the world? You guys sound stupid saying Samsung got to where they are all by copying.
And that's exactly what is worrying. Now you're going to have every company trying to patent every little thing they can, and suing anyone who even dares to make anything remotely similar. In the end, we lose.
tell you the truth they are. In many ways much more so that Apple. Just most of it is not in areas that consumers see or care about.
Apple is inovative really in a very limited area. Just most of it is in the consumer market line of site so it is seen by the masses.
damn, well i guess they did copy, but it seems rather harsh. I thought they would just belay it till next year which would be just as bad for their sales.
This is good too though, people slave away for new ideas and things just to have others copy and potentially steal their hard work.
Just seems harsh to me.
This is good too though, people slave away for new ideas and things just to have others copy and potentially steal their hard work.
Just seems harsh to me.
i find it amusing every time somebody uses that picture of a samsung display with apple logos on it. this display was obviously not made by the ceo of samsung and. some 16 year old probably got fired because he googled app icons and used the first 10 images to build the display.
Welcome to the party. This has been the case for a number of years. Listen to the talk on Wall Street. The patent wars have been escalating more and more each year. This is not unique to Apple at all. Every tech company is involved.
We'll see where things go.
Of course samsung is innovative. Samsung actually patents real inventions. Like 3G and 4G technology. Apple patents rounded rectangles and finger gestures.
while i agree, it was apparently - as i first expected - not even part of the samsung store (in store), but rather a backdrop (likely to a mobile area), but up by the retail house itself (euronics).
----------
Except that Apple seems more interested in blocking competition, than upholding fair competition (unlike, e.g., MSFT).
divinox said:
Blah blah blah, why are ppl still discussing this? The courts ruled. You can't steal a patent. Simple as that. Its hilarious that now all the armchair patent lawyers are still trying to come to grips with this.
Don't blame apple, blame the system. Anyone who thinks any other company wouldn't do what apple did is in severe denial
In Spanish law prima facie doesn't means that the evidence is conclusive, it means that it supports the case.
What it means in Australian low?
Being in a 'corporate' family in Korea are a big deal... It's part of the Asian culture, which is why I made the point.
But I agree with you; no one here cares about what you do as your aunt's nephew.
Your now trying to argue that prima facie means different things in different countries?...silliness
Last edited:
Another Judge issues another ruling against Samsung, and the Samsung apologisti are out in force again.
Does it ever occur to you guys that maybe an Australian Judge knows a little bit more about Australian patent law than you do? Guess not. Of course, the Australian Judge has probably actually read the asserted Patents, as well as Apple claims of how Samsung infringed.
Samsung will probably never come close to creating the sort of innovation Apple does. Read this Fortune magazine article to understand why.
Emphasis mine.
Does it ever occur to you guys that maybe an Australian Judge knows a little bit more about Australian patent law than you do? Guess not. Of course, the Australian Judge has probably actually read the asserted Patents, as well as Apple claims of how Samsung infringed.
Samsung will probably never come close to creating the sort of innovation Apple does. Read this Fortune magazine article to understand why.
Emphasis mine.