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
Indeed there must be millions of way to design a tablet.
Microsoft seemed to be able to do it and not have even the packaging INSIDE THE BOX look EXACTLY like Apple's
Yes, reduce everything to the most basic straw-man to make a point...
If Apple starts making TVs obviously intended to look as much like Samsung's as possible from the store packaging to the interface to the design of the set, they'd deserve to get sued too. I'm guessing they won't though.
Microsoft made a tablet before Apple did I guess that means Microsoft should sue apple?
I'm not sure, we still have no detailed specs, no price and no release date.
Will it be a hit like the xBox or a flop like the Zune?
Design patents are quite complex. These articles are not. They're designed as light reading, and they provide very little valid information. They're more of a PR tool, and a way for the site to generate revenue.
Apple does this too, but they have PR on their side. Anyway Apple still sued on the Galaxy S3. I'm not sure what it was about, but it's likely that they're going to add any flagship device from Samsung to their requested injunction list. Delaying such products regardless of patent merit is essentially a win for Apple.
I don't think Microsoft "made" any tablets before the (unreleased Surface). Do you mean they made a version of their OS that various PC makers used to put on tablet PCs? But anyway, what does that have to do with this article? Did the judge rule that "Apple made a tablet before Samsung?"
Why make a really inaccurate comparison? That doesn't make any point at all. Perhaps if you referred to some Apple products and another company's products and compared them in the same way the judge compared Samsung's to Apples.
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.
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.
I definitely have mixed feelings about this. Samsung does have every right to produce a tablet. And a tablet, by nature, can only look so unique. Same goes for smart phones these days- most of them have all the same basic design ideas.
I think that the real factor is the OS, which in this case is drastically different enough to demonstrate that Samsung was trying to go their own way.
This would be like Compaq claiming Packard Bell ripped off their design for the 486 machines back in the day. A box. With a couple slots. They all looked the same back then, just as all the tablets look more or less the same today. Glass, with a button, and a touch interface. Given, Apple did pioneer the initial success of the tablet, but Samsung is not the only one making a product that plays off the design of the iPad.
I think that the real factor is the OS, which in this case is drastically different enough to demonstrate that Samsung was trying to go their own way.
This would be like Compaq claiming Packard Bell ripped off their design for the 486 machines back in the day. A box. With a couple slots. They all looked the same back then, just as all the tablets look more or less the same today. Glass, with a button, and a touch interface. Given, Apple did pioneer the initial success of the tablet, but Samsung is not the only one making a product that plays off the design of the iPad.
Why do people say "I'm going to Xerox this paper"? Next time I want to make a copy, I'm going to "Samsung" it.
----------
I think this is the highest concentration of AAPL investors because knowing this kind of news (not this article specifically) is important.
There aren't as many fanboys as people seem to think. In this case, though, Samsung did copy Apple's design.
----------
You're on an Apple site. Most people are on Apple's side on this legal matter. Go figure!
Go to any FanDroid site and you'll see the same stuff.
Now back under your bridge. A fanboy might get by!
I think this is the highest concentration of AAPL investors because knowing this kind of news (not this article specifically) is important.
There aren't as many fanboys as people seem to think. In this case, though, Samsung did copy Apple's design.
You couldn't prove that in a Court of Law.
Sure I could. I could point to a tablet PC, then point to an iPad. Just because they don't call it that officially doesn't mean that isn't what it is. Like I could make a wheel, call it a Skrolnikian Flanger Rotatrix device, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still...what?
Not a horse.
Indeed there must be millions of way to design a tablet
There are. Remember tablets before the iPad? Now think of tablets after the iPad.
Yup. They were screens in a thin (for the time) chassis with various amounts of buttons on the bezel.
They're screens in a thin chassis with usually one button on the bezel.
I wonder how you would feel if one of your office mate at work kept taking your work and turning it in as their own to get your bonus check. Even better if your neighbor just helps himself to your new 50 inch TV because it will benefit him better. I'm sure you would say nothing about this and just keep being a busy little bee. Apple allowed Microsoft to take advantage of them with the original Mac and it has taken them almost 20 year to recover. I'm so glad they are being jerks to thieves.
As the Defense I would have you define tablet and then polk holes into it. For instance I'd get you to admit that the Microsoft tablets of a few years ago had Stylus and were often attached to keyboard and ran the same desktop OS. Neither of which are required by the iPad.
Suddenly your definition of "Tablet" isn't quite so clear. We'd spend days arguing over minutia
I see a supplier 'borrowing' inspiration from a client's ideas/tooling and spinning out a competing product.
If you can call anything based on Android as 'competing', that is.
----------
Did I miss an earlier post where Apple's Newton was mentioned?
If you can call anything based on Android as 'competing', that is.
----------
As the Defense I would have you define tablet and then polk holes into it. For instance I'd get you to admit that the Microsoft tablets of a few years ago had Stylus and were often attached to keyboard and ran the same desktop OS. Neither of which are required by the iPad.
Suddenly your definition of "Tablet" isn't quite so clear. We'd spend days arguing over minutia
Did I miss an earlier post where Apple's Newton was mentioned?