Haha, you guys are ridiculous. Let's put Steve Jobs on banknotes while you're at it.
You do understand that this case has NOTHING to do with Android and only relates to how Samsung's tablet was marketed?
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 Preliminary Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha, you guys are ridiculous. Let's put Steve Jobs on banknotes while you're at it.
You do understand that this case has NOTHING to do with Android and only relates to how Samsung's tablet was marketed?
HAHA, you are too funny. Here bro, let me make it clear for you
:Ping = pointless, because it failed to integrate with the biggest social network on the planet. Spotify didn't make that same mistake.
Here is Apple recognizing its failure: http://www.bgr.com/2012/06/13/apple-ping-discontinued-social-network-music-itunes/
Google+ is failing because it cannot get people to use it. Here's a story and a bit of data on that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577249341403742390.html
----------
Told you : O
As soon as you back him in a corner with enough evidence that even he cannot spin it to his perspective, he simply puts you on ignore. What a joke. Can't even admit he's wrong.
Reminds me of the donkey from Family Guy:
Exactly.
Interestingly, the U.S. Design Patent claim depends on how much of the design is determined to be functional, as only totally-decorative items can be patented.
Some judges have noted that rounded corners and flat fronts are functional, not just decorative, and thus are not protectable by a Design Patent. In those courts, Apple's available patent claims seem to boil down to their decorative design having even borders all around, a border trim, and a certain back case edge curvature.
--
The Trade Dress claims of overall look and feel haven't really been addressed yet. One judge did comment that trade dress depends a lot on how much advertising was centered around the items being claimed... and noted that Apple never advertised their packaging, nor could they come up with any ad emphasis on their particular case design.
It's like when Prestone lost their trade dress claim against a small local businessman who was selling his own anti-freeze in a similar yellow jug. The court could find no evidence that Prestone ads had ever emphasized their container's color and shape... but had instead simply talked about their product's performance. If only they had said "Look for our yellow jug!"
Perhaps the lesson here is that it sometimes pays to show a more specific ad once in a while. Like, "Oooo, feel the rounded corners on my new iPad" and "OMG, the best thing was opening the iPad's package!"
HAHA, you are too funny. Here bro, let me make it clear for you
Ping = pointless, because it failed to integrate with the biggest social network on the planet. Spotify didn't make that same mistake.
Here is Apple recognizing its failure: http://www.bgr.com/2012/06/13/apple-ping-discontinued-social-network-music-itunes/
Google+ is failing because it cannot get people to use it. Here's a story and a bit of data on that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577249341403742390.html
----------
[
I didn't bring up Ping at all. Spotify isn't a social network. Stop throwing random comments into the discussion which have nothing to do with the "argument."
And thanks for the article link. You realize that article is several months old - came out before Google has revamped/redesigned Google+, etc?
You can't claim Google+ is a failure based on old information. Try and find something more recent to base your claim on.
Not from you. Sounds to me like you're just another one of those Socialist, everybody should share everything, even losers get a trophy and we should all just be equal, Kumbayah cats. Well, there is a such thing as competition and if you can't compete then you shouldn't play, if playing means you have to steal to do it.
I'm an Apple shareholder and I'm behind them defending their IP as vigorously as necessary. Some of you have no stake in the fight other than to express your not so thought out opinions because this is the internet and you can do so.
You know who and what you are and since I can't call you what you are without getting my post deleted (More Socialism and Kumbayah), I'll just sit back from here out and laugh at you folks and count my money.
How about you provide some counter evidence? Oh that's right, there is none. Old data still beats no data.
Sure. It's pretty timely since I/O is this week...
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/06/google-plus-now-has-over-250-million-users/
and also http://www.medianama.com/2012/06/223-the-lowdown-what-google-announced-at-io-2012/
Google+ Stats: Vic Gundotra, Googles senior vice president of Social, announced that Google+ is now one year old. He claimed that Google+ now has 250 million upgraded Google accounts, and 150 million+ monthly active users with 50% of the users signing in daily. He stated that users spend around 12 minutes per day in the Google+ stream, up from 9 minutes few months ago.
There are people who don't know that the iPad is made by Apple, and there are more people who don't know that the iPad is made only by Apple and nobody else. While to me a Samsung logo is a clear sign that it is not an iPad, to many people it isn't.
Let's say Grandma wants to buy a birthday present for her younger grandchild. And she is told "I want an iPad, just like my older brother's iPad". So she looks at the brothers iPad, remembers what it looks like, and goes to a store. She doesn't know anything about Apple, Samsung, or Android. Knowing exactly what she looks for, and possibly even asking for an iPad, she is sold a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
What you didn't know is that Grandma is actually a judge who handles patent cases, trademark cases, and design patent cases every day. She knows the law about design patents, and she has read hundreds of items of case law concerning design patents. Compared to you, who doesn't have the slightest clue. And you call Grandma a moron? Say that to her face in court, and you end up in a cell for a night.
Those people would take any tablet to be an iPad, no matter what it looked like though. Nothing Apple can do about that.
Though how can you sit there and argue consumer confusion when Apple sold 10 times as many iPads as Samsung sold tabs ?
You assume that Apple would have anything against Samsung as a whole. They don't. They just don't want Samsung to make mobile phones and tablets that take away sales from Apple by looking like Apple products. (They probably don't want Samsung to make mobile phones and tablets that take away sales from Apple at all, but Apple has no reason to complain if Samsung achieves this by selling good products at good prices).
The first argument is nonsense. Many people know what an iPad looks like, and wouldn't buy something that looks different. There are also people who actually _know_ the difference but still want to buy something that looks like an iPad. And if there was no confusion then Apple would have sold 11 times as many iPads as Samsung sold tabs.
Then they won't be buying the Galaxy Tab, as it's plain obvious from the different back and giant Samsung logo that it is different.
Then this does not apply to them, since all tablets look the same as their basis. A flat surface that's a touchable screen.
And you have a citation for this claim right ?
Not a very compelling argument to prove that there has been confusion. Samsung is not selling "Samsung iPads". They're pretty sure to tell you it's the Galaxy Tab you're buying.
My 2 cents: although there care some similarities, I don;t think its enough to warrant a lawsuit. Apple should let this go. But... they won't.
The law doesn't protect people who don't take normal care in purchasing. A consumer has the responsibilty to use common sense, and the more expensive the item, the more care the law requires.
If she is asked to "Please buy an iPad" and she buys something similar looking called a "Tab", then that is her fault alone. It's as if she were asked to buy "Toy Story Woody" and instead bought a similar looking cowboy doll. She has no good excuse, unless that doll was also marked "Toy Story Woody".
Her situation is like the Bristol-Myers Excedrin trade dress lawsuit against McNeil Tylenol, when the latter came out with Tylenol PM in a box very similar to Excedrin PM. At first Bristol-Myers won an injunction against Tylenol, but that was later reversed by a Federal court which ruled that the large and well known brand names should overcome any confusion.
In other words, just looking similar in shape and color isn't enough if there are other obvious clues as to the maker.
--
However, none of this has to do with this particular injunction, which is not about trade dress. Trade dress is primarily about purposely confusing the source of a product.
This injunction is over a Design Patent... which hasn't even been brought to trial yet, so there's no violation yet.
And that's why this is an interesting ruling. The court decided that possible patent infractions overrule competition when it comes to the public interest. Some excerpts:
"The Federal Circuit remanded for a determination only to allow the Court to make findings regarding the third and fourth Winter factors, and to determine as a whole whether the injunction should issue. Id. at 1333. Specifically, the Federal Circuit instructed this Court, on remand, to “conduct [an] assessment of the balance of hardships with respect to the D’889 Patent.
To the extent that the court finds that the public interest factor cuts in favor of either side, it should weigh that factor as well in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer.”
In light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Samsung has not raised a substantial question as to the validity of the D’889 Patent, this Court finds that the balance of hardships tips in Apple’s favor.
Samsung argues that the public interest favors competition and thus weighs against issuing an injunction which would preclude a product from the market. Opp’n at 10-11. On the other hand, Apple argues that the public interest weighs in favor of enforcing patent rights. Mot. at 9.
The Court agrees with Apple that the public interest favors the enforcement of patent rights here."
From looking at these reports, I still can't find their definition of a user (NYTimes reported that anyone using YouTube is thrown into the Google+ user pool, for instance). Also, this is unaudited data.
And there is something off with this data. It contradicts the comScore report, which showed people spending a few minutes per month on Google+, mere seconds per day. However according to Google, their users are now active 5.6 hours per month (only an hour or so less than Facebook!) and a few months ago they were active 4.2 hours per month. So somehow between January and March there was a massive (~1,000%) jump in activity across the board for all of its users, from a few seconds to 9 minutes a day. And after "a few" more months its at 12 minutes a day.
Here's Facebook's definition of a user:
"An active user is someone who has visited Facebook.com and logged-in (or been logged in) or who has taken an action with a Facebook feature (e.g. clicked like, etc ). If the user doesnt do any of those things for 30 days, they arent considered an active user. If they only see social plugins across the webeven if those social plugins include social context such as friends photos, friends likes, friends recommendationsbut doesnt click anything, they are not an active user."
That Google has been so hesitant to define its user suggest the real numbers aren't very pretty.
The people who can't tell the iPad and the Galaxy Tab apart are the same people who can't tell a Sony tablet and the iPad apart, simply because they think "iPad" and "tablet" mean the same thing.
They think "iPad" is a type of device rather than a product by a particular company. Why should the fact that the Apple hype has created this situation be held against Samsung?
You see what you want to see to back up your statement that Google+ is a stinging failure. It's your right to believe what you want regardless of whether it's accurate or not. You still have yet to define stinging failure. You know - other than to say you don't use it and you don't think others do. I'm sure Google and the rest of the world have a differing opinion on what constitutes a STINGING failure. Good luck and have a nice day.
They failed when I stopped using it. They failed when reports come out suggesting people spend mere seconds on it each day. They failed when they refuse to define their user. They failed when they have to mask the true numbers.
Google and their supporters can continue to lie to themselves, but it is indeed a stinging failure.
If Google's data is true, then I will gladly admit I was wrong. But until they release audited data and define their user, I will continue to call it a stinging failure wrapped up in a shroud of **** because the evidence tells a completely different story than the one Google likes to make up.
The data you are basing your assumption on is old data as it's been pointed out to you. Whether or not you want to accept the new data is your problem. But the fact that you're using data several months old to draw your conclusion simply illustrates your bias. Go and find data to prove your point that is more current and I will gladly admit I was wrong. See how that works?
As soon as a more up-to-date report is released, I'll happy to link it. Until then, I have a hard time believing Google's data since they have been shady about it from the start.
Yeah. Much like when Apple boasted about their 1+ Million Ping users. That data wasn't "shady" at all...
no kidding, but some people just refuse to admit they drank too much Apple kool aid...
Whether it's a "failure" or not seems debatable. Does anyone even remember the name of Apple's social network?
The original Apple evangelist Guy Kawasaki has nothing but good things to say about it:
http://mashable.com/2012/05/22/guy-kawasaki-google-plus/
And before you jump to click "Reply" with some comment like "But he's selling a book!", take a moment to consider who you're writing about. That's Guy Frickin' Kawasaki. He hardly needs the money.