Or know that the company made that cover was a family company of Samsung Electronics.
Or know the cover was developed by together and approved by Samsung.
Or even knows that most of American believe Samsung is an US Company.
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.
Galaxy Tab 10.1 Launch in Australia Delayed Again as Apple Objects to Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or know that the company made that cover was a family company of Samsung Electronics.
Or know the cover was developed by together and approved by Samsung.
Or even knows that most of American believe Samsung is an US Company.
My post was in response to your questioning how what Apple did to Xerox could be construed as "stealing", when Xerox themselves construed that.
Interestingly, Xerox lost that suit for the following reasons, the last of which parallels Apple's main complaint about Samsung:
1) Xerox didn't have any evidence of lost license sales due to Apple.
2) The court said it was not up to them to overturn copyrights.
3) Xerox could not prove that their potential customers were confused:
Likewise, Apple could have an almost impossible task in their trade dress cases, proving that customers are so confused at the point of buying the Tab, that they actually think they're getting an Apple product.
As some have suggested, it seems possible that Apple doesn't expect to win any or all these cases. They just want to delay their competition as much as possible, and give themselves more time to work on their own updates.
Last edited:
They've already sued a restaurant.
----------
"Dude, you're getting a Dell."
It's been mentioned before, that a few years ago Apple tried to stop New York City (aka The Big Apple) from using the following logo for their "Green New York" environmental project.
Apple claimed it would "seriously injure the reputation which it has established for its goods and services."
The judge ruled only one, not some.
Banned? Better says that the judge has given Samsung 2 months to make a little change, they're not banned.
----------
If they started with the iPad why the infringing ones are phones and not the tablets?
Last edited:
That's just so great.
Can I have link to that please, with reference to release in 2003? Also, if you dare, please check the thickness of this thing and tell yourself to check the complete specification before you make an 'incorrect' post.
[Just can't believe that so many of your posts got up-ranked for providing incorrect and incomplete information. Henceforth giving an idea as to MacRumors becoming a troll-land in the recent months.]
That's just so great.
Can I have link to that please, with reference to release in 2003? Also, if you dare, please check the thickness of this thing and tell yourself to check the complete specification before you make an 'incorrect' post.
[Just can't believe that so many of your posts got up-ranked for providing incorrect and incomplete information. Henceforth giving an idea as to MacRumors becoming a troll-land in the recent months.]
Troll? Do you call trolls anyone not answering what you want to read?
Incorrect post? I thought the problem was with overall design. Now, not only the tablet must be non ruggerized, not only presented before 2004 but also with a profile not posible by then because battery technology.
Last edited:
Nopes! But siding with posts that provide incorrect information just out of spite is in my opinion trolling.
Your thoughts in this case seem to be quite appropriate but the evidence you use to justify your stance is 'incorrect'.
I couldn't understand your last point but as much as I do, I'll say:
- Please link a source which claims that the tablet was released before 2004.
- Read the entire specification and you will see that the tablet was more like a convertible with a removable keyboard with a depth of more than the thickness of 4 iPad2's combined.
There's a reason Samsung had to quote a 1968-69 fiction film to demonstrate any prior art to the apple design patent. They just couldn't find any real evidence of an iPad-like portable before the iPad.
http://www.electrovaya.com/news/pr/PR03.aspx
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/El...C-SC-1230-TM5800-1-GHz-12.1in-TFT/542441.aspx
The OVERALL design, a flat surface, a bezel, a touch screen, a glass covering all the surface. That is what Apple is suing for.
And yes, it was thicker, just because battery tech wasn't developed in 2003.
There's a reason Samsung had to quote a 1968-69 fiction film to demonstrate any prior art to the apple design patent. They just couldn't find any real evidence of an iPad-like portable before the iPad.
No, 1968 quote was only one of many prior art quoted by Samsung, it wasn't the only one.
Another real ipad-like portable before the iPad? Compaq TC1100 and Knight Ridder cited by dutch judge to dismiss Apple claims about Samsung copying.
Pages 43-45 of the court decission: http://ieforum.nl/backoffice/upload...1-730,+KG+ZA+11-731+(Apple+tegen+Samsung).pdf
Can you point to specific link in that? I am afraid, that proves nothing.
And somehow that's Apple's problem? And not only that, all these slates were hybrid portables with a removable keyboard. That is the sole reason they were so thick. The entire design philosophy was different then. They were effectively laptops with touch screens and nothing else.
Again, that itself is a hybrid portable with an entirely different design philosophy and not just a slate.
404: NOT FOUND.
Can you point to specific link in that? I am afraid, that proves nothing.
And somehow that's Apple's problem? And not only that, all these slates were hybrid portables with a removable keyboard. That is the sole reason they were so thick. The entire design philosophy was different then. They were effectively laptops with touch screens and nothing else.
Again, that itself is a hybrid portable with an entirely different design philosophy and not just a slate.
404: NOT FOUND.
I give up. Yes, you're totally right, I'm totally wrong, the Dutch judge is wrong, the link proves nothing, making it thicker makes them totally different of an iPad.
And you call others trolls? My God, what a close minded attitude. If reality smashes you you still be denying it.
Oh God! Are you ignoring my entire comment?
Great. The link that you posted does not exist; I was wanting to read what the dutch judge said, but thanks for the insult. Now you can cook up stories, make incorrect posts and cry all you want.
the innovation is ios, not the shape of a tablet.
----------
Apple buying xerox? Source? Seems strange to me as Xerox at that time was a giant, and Apple afaik was not.
Oh God! Are you ignoring my entire comment?
Great. The link that you posted does not exist; I was wanting to read what the dutch judge said, but thanks for the insult. Now you can cook up stories, make incorrect posts and cry all you want.
No, I'm not ignoring the entire comment, I'm tired of the ******* escuse about the thicknes that doesn't give a damn with the overall front design.
I'm tired of your blindness about the evidences, the link about electrovaya is a link of the 2003 press releases. If you want open them, but you don't want knowing
Ah, the pdf link works, but if you want, here is a blof post where you can find it.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung
And thanks about the insult? Which insult? You don't want to read the press releases, you are arguing about the damned thickness only.
Adding more doors to a car is trivial, obvious and services a functional purpose, and is as such not - ever - worthy of a patent.
----------
Sure.
(2004 device).
(2004 device)
(2003 device)
Sure, the design may have been filed _earlier_ in 2004 than the release datum for the top two devices. But for one to believe that they were sourcing through Apple design filings and in a few months radically redesigned their tablets to fit, well, one has to buy a lot of tin foil on a year-to-year basis. Plus, the 2003 device speaks for itself.
All in all, generic, obvious, form-follows-function design. Just like the ipad.
----------
Se above. Second, afaik Apple did not file everywhere in 2004. Could be wrong though, if you have any data indicating otherwise please supply the rest of us.
Second (bold) :
Prior art matching this predates any design registration, and is - in itself - an obvious, trivial case of form-follows-function (no, they werent as thin - because technology didnt allow it to be, did they push to make it thinner, lighter, higher screen-to-device ratio? Of course.). Why would anyone ever (given choice) want to make a tablet anything BUT that? (other than for protective measures etc, where the trade-off pays off; i.e. having an "ipad"-look being non-optimal).
Possible but it's quite common to find large corporations to go after competing companies over design issues whether the claim(s) are legit or not. It's part of strategy to see if they can get away with whatever it is that they're challenging. For Apple if they can win the battle, then the gamble pays off, if not it's like losing a nickel in a pile of Benjamins.
Heck if I recall Intel wanted to patent the letter "i" which got shot down pretty fast in court.
it runs windows, so yeah. a start menu seems natural. apple did not invent "grid of icons". heck, it was on the first touch screen phone ever made (1992), and pretty much every phone following it (capable of displaying such a thing). Second, the GUI of the Sammy device is nothing like that on the Apple device. Jesus. Get a grip.
p.s.
If anyone out of Android and iOS changed the GUI for the mobile phone it was the former (widgets and what nots - note: not saying they invented these things).
----------
Hardly. Doubt anyone could win that fight given MSFTs portfolio.
----------
If its the whole combination Apple has no case. Tablet is different ratio, different dimension, no button, different camera placement, intended for primary use in landscape.
T o t a l i t y, was it?
p.s. pages of apps is obvious, trivial and just plain common sense. Its either pages or scrolling, and scrolling is a far worse solution (Nokia, im looking at you!), as it is a harder way of navigating the information space.
----------
...or MSFTs "swipe-to-camera roll" (which they have a patent for).
Dutch court: 1 patent - on a few devices. Issue (as i understood it) the way an image bounces back if you dont swipe "enough" while browsing pictures. Galaxy tab does not infringe on this patent. Design was thrown out completely.
German court was only on design. No patents, no final verdict. As the Texas of Europe i guess outcome is quite obvious though.
Ergo: You are wrong.
----------
Let me guess, these tablets were Windows tablets? And differed how? Larger screens, thicker, heavier? Sometimes with "protective gear"?
----------
1) I heard that this app is stock. I.e., not developed by samsung. Could be wrong of course. Has happened before.
2) Why include 27 examples (as claimed by Samsung) of prototypes to make a case vs. a non-prototype device?
2.1) Everyone is allowed to start out based on any product. Theres no law against having device A as starting point of your device. The route to a design doesnt matter, the end product does.
----------
What about people knowing that the case was not even designed by Apple in first place? =)
----------
and a grocery store... that had an apple in their logo.
apparently Apple thinks consumers are so stupid that they could end up thinking its an Apple Store they are doing their grocery shopping in.
You mean trademark. You can't patent a letter. Patents are about ideas and methods. Trademarks are about logos/text used as a mark of commerce. Copyright is about text/art that can be copied and distributed.
I think you can dismiss pretty much anything from The Register. Unless you really believe the BOFH is a biographical piece.
Just a note so discussions stay in sync. There are different court cases going on around the world, and evidence and timelines for one might not apply to another.
The 2004 Community Design registration only applies in the EU. It's a fairly vague drawing, without even a Home button:
The 2010 US Design Patent is for the actual iPad product, and details the Home button, switches and connectors:
