Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft is now in the changing room, warming up.

It will be interesting to see if beating everyone else up, Apple will stay in the ring ready to take them on in a fresh round, or they will be no where to be seen once Microsoft enters the arena.

Are they going to try and bully someone their own size?
 
Whats up with all the diehards bolding everything now. Not enough buzz word bingo points to bring up now that Steves gone?
 
Bolded the important part.

It is much, much easier said than done. In fact, it is the most difficult element to pull off successfully, and requires a deep philosophical view of tech )and how tech and people relate) that is already in place well before this Apple-killer product is even in the planning stages.

And we're not talking about the "most different from status quo", but something that "just works" and delights at the same time. Like iOS. A study in simplicity, elegance, and effectiveness. That's a rare combination. But one that is also made possible by controlling the whole widget. If you don't have that, if you're licensing out your OS or if you're the licensee, then just forget it. It's game over before you're even out of the gate. Any Apple-killer requires vertical integration, and the kind of vertical integration that is superior to Apple's.

This requires some fundamental shifts in thinking at places like HP and Dell. This doesn't happen overnight. It requires an Apple-like culture. Good luck trying to get that to germinate at places that are the most un-Apple like as you can find.

In that famous video thatI'm sure we've all seen, Steve Jobs talked about putting "culture" into products. Who the hell else even thinks that way? Who the hell else even views their role in the tech business as an expression that is as much of art as it is science? Who else tries to build culture into their products? Yes, it sounds nebulous, but when you see what Apple is doing, when you see what they've done under Jobs even in the early years, it is something that is easily understood - immediately recognized (even if you can't easily articulate it verbally), but very, very difficult to imitate successfully.

MS, HP, Dell . . . all these folks, lack the culture necessary to pull off Apple-like achievements.

I hope you're being ironic. I mean, this means literally nothing. Define culture for me. Now apply that definition to a piece of electronics.
 
Microsoft is now in the changing room, warming up.

It will be interesting to see if beating everyone else up, Apple will stay in the ring ready to take them on in a fresh round, or they will be no where to be seen once Microsoft enters the arena.

Are they going to try and bully someone their own size?

What are you talking about? HP, Samsung, Nokia, HTC, these aren't small companies, and they're all suing each other, it's not an Apple innovation!
 
Breaking news


Apple objects to competition, again !

sigh, I'm waiting for apple to sue all fruit and veg sellers for using the word apple to sell apples.

is it me, or has the world gone mad ?
 
What are you talking about? HP, Samsung, Nokia, HTC, these aren't small companies, and they're all suing each other, it's not an Apple innovation!

I'm just interested if Apple feels like telling Microsoft it can't sell Windows 8 touch screen tablets when Windows touch screen tablets were out years before Apple made one. ;)

Trying to push Samsung around, lets see how Microsoft reacts shall we?
 
Last edited:
It's not that they're not innovating. Their lawyers have to keep busy too. It's not like they can put their lawyers to work designing the next awesome gadget. They're good at lawsuits and copyright so that's what they do.

Image

NbDRW.jpg


Your argument is invalid
 
Use Apple products. Use the rest. Note the differences. They are significant.

Difficult to define, but easy to understand.

I agree. There are feature-full products like Nokia N8 that lack "culture".

As an example, N8 has some killer features that Apple would integrate into its iCulture in a "cooler" way:

- FM transmitter: Apple would call it something like "iBroadcast: listen to your music through your grandpa's good old stereo".

- USB host (adapter included): Apple would sell this feature as "iTransfer: move your files directly to your USB key or card reader. Adapter sold separately".

This is a sample of what culture means. Looks weird, but works nicely.
 
Last edited:
Use Apple products. Use the rest. Note the differences. They are significant.

Difficult to define, but easy to understand.

Right, so your entire premise is garbage? You can't even define the terms on which you're arguing on?

I agree. There are feature-full products like Nokia N8 that lack "culture".

As an example, N8 has some killer features that Apple would integrate into its iCulture in a "cooler" way:

- FM transmitter: Apple would call it something like "iBroadcast: listen to your music through your grandpa's good old stereo".

- USB host (adapter included): Apple would sell this feature as "iTransfer: move your files directly to your USB key or card reader. Adapter sold separately".

This is a sample of what culture means. Looks weird, but works nicely.

Re-packaging of existing features into buzzwords is not 'culture'. Professors struggle to provide a single accurate definition of what culture is, please don't try and say Apple can implement 'culture' into their products.

Competition that uses Apple's IP and infringes on Apple's designs, isn't competition.

Except that several courts in the EU have determined that the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on Apple's IP?
 
Except that several courts in the EU have determined that the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on Apple's IP?

then why all these delays? If there was no problem, we wouldn't be seeing all these delays.

How come Apple's competitors can't successfully delay Apple products? How come there aren't any preliminary injunctions against Apple products?
 
Last edited:
Except that several courts in the EU have determined that the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on Apple's IP?

False.

Apple alleged that Samsung infringed on quite a number of their patents and Community Design Registrations. European courts ruled that some of Apple's claimed patents were invalid (the "swipe to lock" patent, for example) - but they agreed, at least as far as the preliminary injunction is concerned, that Samsung had infringed on enough of the remaining claims to order the Galaxy and half of Samsungs other smartphones banned.

Its roughly similar to a criminal case, where the prosecution alleges a whole range of crimes. The Judge dismissing the jaywalking and littering charges doesn't mean the defendant isn't guilty of murder.

Apple has dozens of patents and other IP that they feel is infringed upon by Samsung. It is a point of their worldwide legal strategy to orchestrate precisely which patents they choose to allege infringement, and in which particular court. Bringing a case, in any court, where they made every possible infringement against Samsung would make the case virtually impossible to prosecute, or for the Judge to consider. It would become so complicated and time-consuming that it would take years to come to trial. That isn't in Apple's interest. They want Courts, in Jursidictions ranging from Australia to Germany and the Netherlands, to come to a final decision as soon as possible.

This last point is important to keep in mind: It has been Apple that wants Judges to rule as soon as possible. It is Samsung that keeps arguing for delays. Why do you think that is?
 
Xerox was compensated for giving Apple access to the PARC technology. Xerox was, in 1979, given the rights to buy $1 million worth of pre-IPO Apple shares before Jobs or anyone from Apple stepped inside the facility. (Note, these Apple shares would today be worth well over $100 million.)

Xerox paid $1.5 million for that 100,000 shares of Apple stock in August 1979. It split, and they sold 800,000 shares in Oct 1981 for $6,776,000, for a relatively meager profit of ~$5.2 million.

Yes, they should've held onto the shares. Even that would not have been fair compensation in the overall scheme of UI things, but that's their fault.

I struggle to see how this could, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as "stealing."

Xerox claimed it was stealing, because they had only licensed Apple to make the Lisa.

When Apple later sued Microsoft for royalties, Xerox sued Apple for trying to take royalties that they felt belonged at least in part to them.

"In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk. On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]." Shortly thereafter, Apple began developing its "Lisa" computer for use with Smalltalk. " - Xerox v Apple lawsuit, 1990
 
False.

Apple alleged that Samsung infringed on quite a number of their patents and Community Design Registrations. European courts ruled that some of Apple's claimed patents were invalid (the "swipe to lock" patent, for example) - but they agreed, at least as far as the preliminary injunction is concerned, that Samsung had infringed on enough of the remaining claims to order the Galaxy and half of Samsungs other smartphones banned.
The Netherlands ruling was only for ONE infringing item. The bounce back (rubber banding) swipe while viewing photos in the gallery app. Something Samsung can easily fix.
ALL other claims from Apple, including the design complaints, were tossed.

The German judge is an idiot and doesn't have the authority to block anything outside of Germany.
She's probably trying to figure out how to save face after being presented with evidence that Apple doctored some of the photos in their original filing.
No final ruling will come out of that court anyway... it's the drive-thru court. All that court can do is set temporary injunctions until a full hearing is made.
That is what Samsung is waiting for. Only at the full hearing can Samsung push to have Apple's design registrations tossed.
The court in the Netherlands already set a precedent that Apple's design is too generic to be defensible.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Come on Apple, worry about innovating and bringing the best product to market rather than trampling the little guy.

Apple is the new Microsoft.

You poor, poor, deluded little man*. Samsung is far bigger then Apple.

Had Samsung designed its product without copying the Apple iPad and iPhone it wouldn't be in the fix it is now. Apple's the "little" company in this situation and Samsung is the big bully trying to rip off Apple.

Regardless of the companies' sizes, innovators need to protect their uniqueness for competitive reasons because research needs a payback and there are unethical companies that will steal innovation rather then innovate themselves. You want competition? Then let's see Samsung and others do something competitive and design something innovative.

* Buzz Lightyear to his best friend, Woody.
 
Last edited:
Xerox claimed it was stealing, because they had only licensed Apple to make the Lisa.

And their lawsuit got tossed out. And Apple ultimately lost their lawsuit against Microsoft.

Xerox, and their neckbearded researchers, can claim whatever they want. The fact of the matter is Xerox was too stupid, hidebound, or lazy to do anything with the PARC research. Thats their problem. But the fact of the matter is that, as of this moment, Xerox has absolutely zero claims on the iPad, iPhone, Mac, or pretty much anything Apple makes. Whining about this stuff in 2011 makes about as much rhetorical sense as whining about Salieri's treatment of Mozart.

Apple, however, DOES appear to have learned from their earlier mistakes. They've made sure they patent, copyright, or register pretty much everything they do. Samsung, needless to say, have run themselves into a buzzsaw. There is virtually no chance they are going to get out of the various legal quagmires without seriously compromising the user experience of anyone so deluded as to buy one of their wretched Tablets.
 
The Netherlands ruling was only for ONE infringing item. The bounce back (rubber banding) swipe while viewing photos in the gallery app. Something Samsung can easily fix.
ALL other claims from Apple, including the design complaints, were tossed.

Yes, Samsung CAN easily fix this patent incursion. However, it is indicative of Samsung's design process that started with an iPad for it's product basis. If Samsung had independently designed their product in a sandbox, they would not have made such an error. In the long run Samsung will need to also defend their design process or Apple will show that all similarities between their products to Apple's products was due to a coping process not independent design decisions.

The German judge is an idiot and doesn't have the authority to block anything outside of Germany.
She's probably trying to figure out how to save face after being presented with evidence that Apple doctored some of the photos in their original filing.

The judge has more authority than you believe. Also, we don't know if Apple doctored any photos. There is also evidence that the "doctored" photos were early Samsung prototypes. If that is so, then Apple's case is all the stronger that Samsung did not design its product, but started with a copy of of the iPad. Not a smart way to avoid eventual patent suits.

No final ruling will come out of that court anyway... it's the drive-thru court. All that court can do is set temporary injunctions until a full hearing is made.
That is what Samsung is waiting for. Only at the full hearing can Samsung push to have Apple's design registrations tossed.

As an injunction, the court is preventing more damaged to the patent holder while the case is being tried. During the court trial, Apple may just as easily get more of their patents upheld as Samsung can get them tossed. To assume that Samsung will naturally prevail is a leap of logic.

The court in the Netherlands already set a precedent that Apple's design is too generic to be defensible.

This may set a precedent, as you say. However, it may not make any impression on the set of law that the German court will use. This is as big a ball of wax as it started out to be. That's why it is best to not start with a copy of a patented product and try to differentiate your design from that point on. Samsung has set themselves up for a lot of avoidable grief.
 
It's not that they're not innovating. Their lawyers have to keep busy too. It's not like they can put their lawyers to work designing the next awesome gadget. They're good at lawsuits and copyright so that's what they do.

Image

tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg


Your photo comparison above is pure BS. Apple has been a successful marketer of OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS:

Before iPad AND iPhone:
4548634609_98d245176a.jpg


pda-hp-ipaq-pocket-pc-rz-1710_56447.jpg


3887083374_4c1b7d7df0.jpg


Oh and before I hear any lame comments about the Newton debacle...look up the history of it. Case designed by apple...Newton designed by Motorola
 
Last edited:
>Secondly, they are trying to show that because of the iPad,
>these so called design features came into the tablet world which
>were never there before.
>[overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen,

Computer screens have been more or less rectangular since the 70s and it's quite obvious that one would try to make it as dominant as possible in such a device.

>narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface,
See above, it's just common sense to make it so once it became technology possible

>a flat back surface and a thin form factor]

Black, white or green no sense in making such a device thicker than needed.

The iPad is a clear example of form-follows-function which mean Apple should never been awarded that design-patent in the 1st place.

If "Form Follows Function," and Apple's iPad design was the "obvious" way to design a tablet, then why did most of the tablets presented at the CES Show a few months before the Apple iPad was announced not look at all like the iPad???
 
Before iPad AND iPhone:

So what, they look nothing like an iPad or an iPhone. Motorola manufactured and did some work related to electrical engineering on the Newton from what I have gathered, some other devices apparently also ran the Newton OS BTW.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.