Apple Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales in U.S.

[mramaley]

Classic! Why the downrates?

When you are Samsung and run out of ideas, you start to copy Apple.
When you start to copy apple, you get sued by Apple.
When you get sued by Apple, your Apple copies get band to enter the country.
When your Apple copies get band to enter the country, you need to vanish,
When you need to vanish, you fake your own death.
When you fake your own death, you dye your eyebrows,
and when you dye your eyebrows, you attend your own funneral as a company named Phil Shifley.
Dont attend your own funneral as a company named Phil Shifley, get rid of Apple copying slaker employees and upgrade to good hardworking emploeyes that can think different.

 

[samcraig]

No need to be self-righteous. Everyone, including yourself, is affected by groupthink.

I'm sure the majority of the Android haters have actually used one in a store or one that their friend owned. I know I have.

I think a lot of people are angry to see Samsung and Android seemingly copy Apple instead of producing something "better." It implies that neither Google or Samsung are willing to take a risk and try something new, as Apple has done (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/steve-ballmer-laughs-at-i_n_378518.html).

Granted, Google does try out a lot of new things, but no where near as much as the early days -- especially after the stinging failure of Google Wave and Google+.

1) Using your friends or trying one out in the store does not equate to the same thing as owning the device yourself and having day-to-day (for years) experience with the product. So you've proved my point

2) Why are people angry? This is business. It's technology. No one is harming a loved one. You know - a PERSON. I find the whole misplaced anger at companies silly.

3) Google+ isn't a failure (yet). And you're showing bias if you think Google doesn't try out new things all the time vs other companies like Apple.

4) As for as being self righteous in my post - that's your prerogative. And actually - I do my best to learn and educate myself on topics RATHER than subject myself to groupthink. See the thing is - I can recognize it when I see it and I question myself often as to what MY actual opinion is based on what I have read from a variety of sources - not ones which I know would and could show bias. Call my cynical. That's more appropriate than self righteous

 

[Oletros]

Ok, dude. It's not an EXACT copy. My point is that it was obvious cloning.

What was cloned? Can you point a single thing or you don't have nothing?

Android was even advertised in a way that implied that it is iOS done right

Source?

You can debate everything to death, but damn. If you don't see the evidence in the link as proof that Samsung is copying Apple blatantly, then OK. Whatever, man.

You can debate what you want, Samsung is not Android and Galaxy S hardware is not Android and a Samsung USB charger is not Android

And, finally, still waiting for those things that Andorid has stolen

Do you have any proof or do you only spit crap?

----------

Um...no sh-t?

The point of those images is to show the competition copies Apple...

Hence the false and debunked before iPad and after iPad products..

Corrected, you're welcome

 

[aerok]

1) Using your friends or trying one out in the store does not equate to the same thing as owning the device yourself and having day-to-day (for years) experience with the product. So you've proved my point

2) Why are people angry? This is business. It's technology. No one is harming a loved one. You know - a PERSON. I find the whole misplaced anger at companies silly.

3) Google+ isn't a failure (yet). And you're showing bias if you think Google doesn't try out new things all the time vs other companies like Apple.

4) As for as being self righteous in my post - that's your prerogative. And actually - I do my best to learn and educate myself on topics RATHER than subject myself to groupthink. See the thing is - I can recognize it when I see it and I question myself often as to what MY actual opinion is based on what I have read from a variety of sources - not ones which I know would and could show bias. Call my cynical. That's more appropriate than self righteous

Very well said!

I too agree that there is nothing more silly than being angry over corporate affairs that does not hurt you. Who cares if A copies B? Did they kidnap your kid doing so?

 

[ristlin]

1) Using your friends or trying one out in the store does not equate to the same thing as owning the device yourself and having day-to-day (for years) experience with the product. So you've proved my point

2) Why are people angry? This is business. It's technology. No one is harming a loved one. You know - a PERSON. I find the whole misplaced anger at companies silly.

3) Google+ isn't a failure (yet). And you're showing bias if you think Google doesn't try out new things all the time vs other companies like Apple.

4) As for as being self righteous in my post - that's your prerogative. And actually - I do my best to learn and educate myself on topics RATHER than subject myself to groupthink. See the thing is - I can recognize it when I see it and I question myself often as to what MY actual opinion is based on what I have read from a variety of sources - not ones which I know would and could show bias. Call my cynical. That's more appropriate than self righteous

The belief that bypassing groupthink is better than being trapped by it is being self righteous as you believe your way is better. Also, to believe that you aren't affected by groupthink is denial. Unless you exist in your own culture and society with population of 1, you are affected by groupthink. It is normal.

So you actually have a Google+ account?

It is right to be angry at companies. It is considered normal and good for society. Examples: angry at BP for oil spill, angry at Apple for workplace environment, angry at Google for privacy. This is just another example. Angry at companies for copying rather than putting in a little more effort.

To get the best "feel" for something, it is better to try your friend's phone or using it at the store. Owning it would likely expose you to knowledge bias and mere exposure effect. This is also a reason why many companies eagerly offer the "return it after 30 days if you don't like it!" Either you'll forget to return it or you'll get used to mediocrity.

 

[Kurwenal]

Because God forbid people have choices and want to buy something other than the iPhone.

No question choice is good. Choice that doesn't involve infringing someone else's intellectual property is better.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Personally I think a lot of this is being done for show. If Apple really wanted to bring Samsung to their knees they would be looking for new suppliers and cut off the billions they pay to Samsung every year for components.

It might be true that Samsung's mobile devices are designed and built by a different division of Samsung, but all Samsung groups fall under the same mother corporation. If Apple really wants to cause economic harm to Samsung then cancel their contracts for components and move to new suppliers. That is likely to get their attention much better then all these little courtroom episodes.

 

[danny_w]

Apple simply isn't going to tolerate thieving of their ideas.

...but they will gladly steal other people's ideas and call them their own...

Apple, it is time to quit being so two-faced.

 

[ristlin]

No question choice is good. Choice that doesn't involve infringing someone else's intellectual property is better.

Sadly, eventually it won't matter and it will just be a branding/marketing war. It pretty much is already. Oh well...

 

[samcraig]

It is right to be angry at companies. It is considered normal and good for society. Examples: angry at BP for oil spill, angry at Apple for workplace environment, angry at Google for privacy. This is just another example. Angry at companies for copying rather than putting in a little more effort.

To get the best "feel" for something, it is better to try your friend's phone or using it at the store. Owning it would likely expose you to knowledge bias and mere exposure effect. This is also a reason why many companies eagerly offer the "return it after 30 days if you don't like it!" Either you'll forget to return it or you'll get used to mediocrity.

Sorry - did you just equate a couple of environmental and biological hazards to a patent case?

"used to mediocrity" is subjective isn't it. I have several iPhones and despite me having several issues with it overall - and having invested in the ecosystem for a long time - I settled for a long time. Oh - I still think my iPhone 4 is a GREAT phone. But now - on a daily basis, I use my Skyrocke. And guess what - both phones and the OSes they run have fantastic elements and some things that are less than refined.

Oh. And I didn't say I was never a victim of groupthink. I did say, however, that I recognize it and do my best to not fall into it. It's easy to see some posters here who never bother to question the material they are regurgitating. It's also easy to see who actually reads the thread vs who skims or just jumps to the end and starts throwing out discussion points from several pages back and that have been "concluded" so to speak.

----------

Personally I think a lot of this is being done for show. If Apple really wanted to bring Samsung to their knees they would be looking for new suppliers and cut off the billions they pay to Samsung every year for components.

It might be true that Samsung's mobile devices are designed and built by a different division of Samsung, but all Samsung groups fall under the same mother corporation. If Apple really wants to cause economic harm to Samsung then cancel their contracts for components and move to new suppliers. That is likely to get their attention much better then all these little courtroom episodes.

If that were true - ask yourself why they haven't. There's your answer. Apple isn't going to bring Samsung to its knees in the way you suggest. I posted a response to this earlier in this thread (a page or two back).

 

[ristlin]

...but they will gladly steal other people's ideas and call them their own...

Apple, it is time to quit being so two-faced.

There is no such thing as stealing an idea.

Business 101: Ideas aren't important. It is how you implement that idea that counts, and that is where patents come in. You'll hear this same refrain from Oxford, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, and from businessmen all over the world.

 

[Bonfire22]

hi,

Palm would like it's UI back

Image

Image

The Palm Pilot came out in 1997. Apple's Newton MessagePad was released in 1993' so you're point is...

 

[KnightWRX]

No question choice is good. Choice that doesn't involve infringing someone else's intellectual property is better.

Of course, there was no infringment ruled on yet. Judge Koh even stated in her prior ruling that it was denying Apple's injunction based on the fact that its patent was most likely invalid.

She was "forced" to grant it by the Appeal's court.

----------

Sorry - did you just equate a couple of environmental and biological hazards to a patent case?

That's called a straw man argument. It's the reason the guy is on my ignore list. He'll just egg you on to post and post and it's not going to bring any new or good to the discussion. Don't waste your time.

----------

The Palm Pilot came out in 1997. Apple's Newton MessagePad was released in 1993' so you're point is...

I think his point is that "Icons arranged in a grid" are not an innovative concept Apple brought with the iPhone. They've been around for pretty much the whole time WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers) has been with us.

 

[Kurwenal]

Of course, there was no infringment ruled on yet. Judge Koh even stated in her prior ruling that it was denying Apple's injunction based on the fact that its patent was most likely invalid.

She was "forced" to grant it by the Appeal's court.

Not true. The 9th Circuit did not force or dictate the outcome (although it has the power to do so). Instead, the panel told Judge Koh that she had applied the wrong legal standard with respect to the question of whether Apple's design patent is valid under the prior art cited by Samsung, and the court remanded the case for consideration under the correct legal standard.

With respect to the question of infringement, Judge Koh found that Apple is "likely to succeed" on the question of infringement (and other issues), which, with respect to this issue, is all she needs to find to grant a PI. If you go back and look at what I said, you will find nothing inconsistent with this.

 

[DakotaGuy]

If that were true - ask yourself why they haven't. There's your answer. Apple isn't going to bring Samsung to its knees in the way you suggest. I posted a response to this earlier in this thread (a page or two back).

I don't know why they haven't and because they haven't that tells me a lot of this is for show. These will go on and on for years and years and in the end the only people who will really profit is the attorneys and legal firms.

There are plenty of companies large enough to supply Apple with what they need. You claim that Samsung would just pick up where Apple left off and just fill in the business with another company. Who (other then Samsung themselves) could even come close to buying the components that Apple buys from them? Answer is nobody. If Apple pulls the plug you darn right Samsung would feel it. In fact pulling the plug on their billion dollar supply contracts at the same time as pushing forward with these lawsuits could be a one-two knockout punch that Apple needs to effectively remove them as a competitor.

 

[ristlin]

Sorry - did you just equate a couple of environmental and biological hazards to a patent case?

"used to mediocrity" is subjective isn't it. I have several iPhones and despite me having several issues with it overall - and having invested in the ecosystem for a long time - I settled for a long time. Oh - I still think my iPhone 4 is a GREAT phone. But now - on a daily basis, I use my Skyrocke. And guess what - both phones and the OSes they run have fantastic elements and some things that are less than refined.

Oh. And I didn't say I was never a victim of groupthink. I did say, however, that I recognize it and do my best to not fall into it. It's easy to see some posters here who never bother to question the material they are regurgitating. It's also easy to see who actually reads the thread vs who skims or just jumps to the end and starts throwing out discussion points from several pages back and that have been "concluded" so to speak.

I equated nothing. Simply pointed out that it is normal to be angry at companies and provided some examples. It would be silly to compare the seriousness of an oil spill with copyright infringement. However, it is perfectly normal for people to express anger. It is not something that requires justification.

As for mediocrity, I didn't intend to say that Samsung phones or Android OS are mediocre. However, IF they are mediocre, by owning it for an extended period of time you would have fallen victim to the mere exposure effect and knowledge bias -- more so than if you were to compare the models at a store. Hence, why it is perfectly fine to say you have "experienced" Android/Samsung phones by just trying it out at the store or using one belonging to a friend.

And for that last part, yes that is a better response in describing how some posters behave. You don't seem self righteous now.

 

[Schmitty11]

Monopolies are illegal, Apple.

 

[ristlin]

Not true. The 9th Circuit did not force or dictate the outcome (although it has the power to do so). Instead, the panel told Judge Koh that she had applied the wrong legal standard with respect to the question of whether Apple's design patent is valid under the prior art cited by Samsung, and the court remanded the case for consideration under the correct legal standard.

With respect to the question of infringement, Judge Koh found that Apple is "likely to succeed" on the question of infringement (and other issues), which, with respect to this issue, is all she needs to find to grant a PI. If you go back and look at what I said, you will find nothing inconsistent with this.

Don't bother convincing him he's wrong. He'll just put you on his ignore list

 

[LordVic]

I think his point is that "Icons arranged in a grid" are not an innovative concept Apple brought with the iPhone. They've been around for pretty much the whole time WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers) has been with us.

exactly.

The one thing that bothers me about these patent trollign lawsuits by everyone is that as we minimize our footprint and make things smaller and more efficient, we run into the problem tthat there are only so many "shades of grey" something can be painted.

(hardware wise)
if you were going for the absolute bare minimum device, you would be effectively making nothing but a screen that you hold. There are only so many ways to create this. there are only so many ways to "round corner" and there are only so many ways to "make it thinner". at some point, if everyone is aming to do the exactly same thing with miniturization, you get into the problem that most of ti will start looking alike.


The same goes for UI's. There are only so many ways of presenting a grid of shortcuts. eventually as we work towards minimalization, we will no matter what run into overlap.

we will continue seeing more and more of these lawsuits pop up because we're at a point where there's only so many ways to skinning the same cat. The entire patent system needs to be revamped.

if you want to go as far back and say "well the newton used a grid based layout for shortcuts"

you can go say that about any GUI based OS.

Hey, here's windows 3.0! it's shortcuts within program manager were layed out, guess what. as a grid of shortcuts too! and it was released in 1990!

 

[Kurwenal]

Monopolies are illegal, Apple.

Actually, not. Having monopoly power is not in and of itself unlawful. Having such power and then abusing it, such as through predatory pricing, is unlawful.

Patents are a form of lawful monopoly.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Monopolies are illegal, Apple.

Oh I bet there are many readers of this forum that wish Apple did have a monopoly and was the only choice for products like this.

 

[Kurwenal]

Don't bother convincing him he's wrong. He'll just put you on his ignore list

Well, it wouldn't be a Wednesday if I didn't make someone's ignore list somewhere on the Intertubes.....

 

[KnightWRX]

Not true. The 9th Circuit did not force or dictate the outcome (although it has the power to do so). Instead, the panel told Judge Koh that she had applied the wrong legal standard with respect to the question of whether Apple's design patent is valid under the prior art cited by Samsung, and the court remanded the case for consideration under the correct legal standard.

The 9th Circuit court ruled that the prior art on which Judge Koh based her denial ruling, the Knight Rider concept from 1994, was not applicable due to differences in the measurements (it is not a rectangle concept) with the design patents.

In short, they disagreed with Judge Koh on this prior art and basically told her to make her ruling without this evidence. Noticed how "forced" was in quotes. The whole basis for Koh's ruling was this evidence. That is how I meant she was "forced" (again, notice the quotes, she was free to rule again based on other evidence if she so had wished).

With respect to the question of infringement, Judge Koh found that Apple is "likely to succeed" on the question of infringement (and other issues), which, with respect to this issue, is all she needs to find to grant a PI. If you go back and look at what I said, you will find nothing inconsistent with this.

For smartphones, not tablets :

In her ruling, Koh wrote that for some of the smartphones, "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial."

Koh added that Apple would likely prove Samsung infringed one of its tablet patents. However, Apple had not shown that it was likely to overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity, Koh wrote.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/0...previously-offered-scrollback-patent-license/

Notice how the granted injunction here is on a tablet, not a smartphone.

----------

Hey, here's windows 3.0! it's shortcuts within program manager were layed out, guess what. as a grid of shortcuts too! and it was released in 1990!

Image

We all pretty much know how the WIMP came to computing. Xerox PARC came up with the concept, Steve Jobs brought it to consumers and the industry with the Macintosh. That was what now ? close to 30 years ago. I think we can move on about who copied who here. 30 years later, it's just a common culture in the industry, just like it's accepted cars have 4 wheels, just like we accept TVs are rectangles with a bezel, just like we accept that tons of other product categories look alike on some very minimalist level.

The icons in a grid is now a convention, it's not an Apple innovation or a Xerox invention anymore. And the funniest part of all that ? Neither Samsung nor Google uses it as a UI in Android for the home screen. The homescreen is where you set up widgets, unlike iOS where it's a rigid icon grid.

 

[ristlin]

Monopolies are illegal, Apple.

 

[Oletros]

Monopolies are illegal, Apple.

No, they are not