Galaxy tab isn't a copy of iPad

[urkel]

I was going to respond to someone but he just seems so angry when discussing anything Apple so I'll pose this as a general question.

Why is it okay for every single consumer products to look similar EXCEPT the iPhone/iPad?

Just about every consumer car, microwave, refrigerator, computer, lamp, stereo, headphones or waffle maker have the same basic shape because standardizing products is GOOD for the consumer and competition. Its always fascinating to see museum exhibits displaying the early days of products like TV's, Toasters, Computers etc and its always the same pattern:

1) Everyone jumps in with their own wacky design of a new product
2) One companies design eventually becomes popular among consumers
3) The competitors mimic the design and then put R&D into feature differentiators
4) A standard is created which makes it easier for consumers to make choices

You may not be able to tell a Samsung vs Apple tablet from 20ft away but can you really tell the difference between a GE or Panasonic Microwave without reading the label? And this isnt a bad thing IF you care more about the consumer than the company because in the end then these are tools and the ability to switch brands throughout our lifetime is something we (should) want to retain.

 

[entatlrg]

Samsung didn't innovate, like many other sheepish companies they sat back waiting and wondering what Apple was going to come out with.

Once they smelled success they starting knocking off Apple's innovations. Why anyone would support such a joke of a business model is beyond me.

 

[bruinsrme]

I was going to respond to someone but he just seems so angry when discussing anything Apple so I'll pose this as a general question.

Why is it okay for every single consumer products to look similar EXCEPT the iPhone/iPad?

Just about every consumer car, microwave, refrigerator, computer, lamp, stereo, headphones or waffle maker have the same basic shape because standardizing products is GOOD for the consumer and competition. Its always fascinating to see museum exhibits displaying the early days of products like TV's, Toasters, Computers etc and its always the same pattern:

1) Everyone jumps in with their own wacky design of a new product
2) One companies design eventually becomes popular among consumers
3) The competitors mimic the design and then put R&D into feature differentiators
4) A standard is created which makes it easier for consumers to make choices

You may not be able to tell a Samsung vs Apple tablet from 20ft away but can you really tell the difference between a GE or Panasonic Microwave without reading the label? And this isnt a bad thing IF you care more about the consumer than the company because in the end then these are tools and the ability to switch brands throughout our lifetime is something we (should) want to retain.

I have to admit I am pissed off as heck that apple so blatantly copied apples iPhone 4 in making the iPhone 4s. They look exactly alike. I hope apple sues the heck out of apple.

I don't think apple is afraid of the galaxy, I think apple is afraid of the potential the android market could have. Imagine Samsung and say amazon collaborating a hardware and software distribution network?

One oem making a tablet and the two partners teaming up to support an on line store? It's not like apple is the only one with media on line.

 

[urkel]

Samsung didn't innovate, like many other sheepish companies they sat back waiting and wondering what Apple was going to come out with.

Once they smelled success they starting knocking off Apple's innovations. Why anyone would support such a joke of a business model is beyond me.

But that's exactly my question. Samsung took many of the successful concepts of the iPad but how is that different from car companies copying ford or refrigerator companies copying frigidaire? Why is it that Apple should "own" a design but other pioneering companies shouldn't? Especially when the tablet concepts have already been established in scifi years ago?

Motorolas flip phones were always compared to Star Trek communicators and Motorola never fought against the eventual wave of flip phones, but when Apple makes Star Treks tablets a reality then we're supposed to believe this idea should belong solely to Apple?

 

[palpatine]

if you look at the documents in the disputes i think you'll see that this "copy-cat" rhetoric is all a smoke-screen they had behind while big companies manipulate the antiquated patent system. don't buy into the crap spewing out of apple, samsung, google, and others.

apple is manipulating (quite brilliantly) the patent system to crush a competitor. that is what this is about (in my opinion). i don't hate apple for it. they are playing the game well. i hate the game, though, because it screws over consumers.

if we set aside the issue of the patent disputes, is there really anything to talk about? try and be objective, walk down the aisles of best buy and look at the products on display. how many of them really stand out as original (to the naked eye)?

there are many square and rectangular pieces of black plastic and glass. sometimes they are cameras. sometimes they are computers. sometimes they are phones. sometimes they are tablets. look inside and you will see some of the same components. run them and you will see some of the same functionality.

i am not saying that there is no innovation/differences out there, but it tends to be incremental, and consumers usually cannot recognize it with the naked eye. companies have to market it to us in order to distinguish themselves from all of the other hunks of plastic and glass.

apple and samsung are marketing a dispute to us, and without their shenanigans most of us wouldn't even bother talking about so-called copying. instead of piling on one side or the other in this dispute, i recommend contacting your representative and pressuring them to do something about the patent system.

 

[jsh1120]

If I could put a +10 on Palpatine's comment above, I would.

In the same vein, Apple has recently applied for "patents" on multiple hand gestures, many of which are utterly ridiculous and will (imo) NEVER be implemented on an Apple device.

What's the point? Simple. An effort to prevent any other manufacturer from implementing gestures of any sort on a tablet screen.

http://gizmodo.com/5858467/ios-doesnt-need-more-stupid-gestures

 

[*LTD*]

if you look at the documents in the disputes i think you'll see that this "copy-cat" rhetoric is all a smoke-screen they had behind while big companies manipulate the antiquated patent system. don't buy into the crap spewing out of apple, samsung, google, and others.

apple is manipulating (quite brilliantly) the patent system to crush a competitor. that is what this is about (in my opinion). i don't hate apple for it. they are playing the game well. i hate the game, though, because it screws over consumers.

if we set aside the issue of the patent disputes, is there really anything to talk about? try and be objective, walk down the aisles of best buy and look at the products on display. how many of them really stand out as original (to the naked eye)?

there are many square and rectangular pieces of black plastic and glass. sometimes they are cameras. sometimes they are computers. sometimes they are phones. sometimes they are tablets. look inside and you will see some of the same components. run them and you will see some of the same functionality.

i am not saying that there is no innovation/differences out there, but it tends to be incremental, and consumers usually cannot recognize it with the naked eye. companies have to market it to us in order to distinguish themselves from all of the other hunks of plastic and glass.

apple and samsung are marketing a dispute to us, and without their shenanigans most of us wouldn't even bother talking about so-called copying. instead of piling on one side or the other in this dispute, i recommend contacting your representative and pressuring them to do something about the patent system.

Yes and no.

Apple is using Samsung to go after Google. This is just a prelude, an opening play in a wider, drawn-out, long-term attack against Google.

And Apple is (or at least Jobs was) quite adamant that there's some significant level of IP theft involved when it comes to Google. Apple is starting at the OEM level, in order to get the legal wheels turning while allowing some time to pass in order for Google's patent situation to clarify. MS is one of the parties helping to clarify it.

Certainly, Apple will use the patent system to their advantage, but to leave out Google as a prime target is to tell only half the story.

 

[jsh1120]

...

Certainly, Apple will use the patent system to their advantage, but to leave out Google as a prime target is to tell only half the story.

That well may be the case. The question then becomes how consumers benefit from such pissing contests among international conglomerates.

 

[palpatine]

That well may be the case. The question then becomes how consumers benefit from such pissing contests among international conglomerates.

i don't know if apple is going after google here (i am aware of what steve said, but i don't remember seeing anything google in the documents).

as for what jsh asked, i would say there is no benefit that i can see.

 

[poloponies]

If I could put a +10 on Palpatine's comment above, I would.

In the same vein, Apple has recently applied for "patents" on multiple hand gestures, many of which are utterly ridiculous and will (imo) NEVER be implemented on an Apple device.

What's the point? Simple. An effort to prevent any other manufacturer from implementing gestures of any sort on a tablet screen.

http://gizmodo.com/5858467/ios-doesnt-need-more-stupid-gestures

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D, much of which goes nowhere. Look at Bell Labs, birthplace of the transistor. It was a research facility that patented thousands (nearly 30,000) of its developments - the vast majority of which went nowhere. So this is nothing new. Apple, Google, Microsoft - they all employ engineers who come up with ideas - not all good, but many which are patentable. Yes, it "locks in" their rights to challenge others who may use it, but that's how it works for anyone who develops anything patentable. And if they're "utterly ridiculous" then why would any other company want to implement them?

 

[palpatine]

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D, much of which goes nowhere. Look at Bell Labs, birthplace of the transistor. It was a research facility that patented thousands (nearly 30,000) of its developments. So this is nothing new. Apple, Google, Microsoft - they all employ engineers who come up with ideas - not all good, but many which are patentable. Yes, it "locks in" their rights to challenge others who may use it, but that's how it works for anyone who develops anything patentable.

1.
we're not talking about patents for innovation. everyone is for that in some shape or form. we're talking about vague and overly broad patents, patents that are actually copies of previous innovations, patent trolls, and buying up patents to true innovations in order to PREVENT their use.

2.
when a company can threaten to sue individual developers (as happened just a few months ago) and force them to pay out protection money in a mafia-like way using vague patents it bought up (absolutely no innovation from the patent trolls, who are often fronts for larger companies), or major companies can battle one another over patent infringements that even patent lawyers don't understand well, then we have a broken system.

3.
it is new. very new.
can you name another case in history when a company gained injunctions against a competitor in several major markets worldwide over a patent dispute? apple wisely did this shortly before the product launch in order to cost samsung untold millions of dollars.

beyond apple and samsung, texas is where some of the most bloody patent battles are being fought for hundreds of millions of dollars. no innovation there. just patents being bought up by patent trolls.

 

[gnasher729]

I was going to respond to someone but he just seems so angry when discussing anything Apple so I'll pose this as a general question.

Why is it okay for every single consumer products to look similar EXCEPT the iPhone/iPad?

Just about every consumer car, microwave, refrigerator, computer, lamp, stereo, headphones or waffle maker have the same basic shape because standardizing products is GOOD for the consumer and competition.

All tablets have the same basic shape. However, we are not discussing the same basic shape. iPad and Sony tablet have the same basic shape, but look very very distinctively different. iPod and Zune had the same basic shape, but looked very very distinctively different. Many cars have the same basic shape, but look very very distinctively different. Headphones have the same basic shape, but I'll pick out my headphones or my wife's headphones out of two dozen different headphones from a mile.

A lawyer for Samsung, who is very well paid to defend his client in every possible legal way did _not_ manage to keep an Apple and a Samsung tablet apart from a short distance.

I'm waiting to see the new school bully take on Microsoft and tell them they can't sell Windows 8 tablets next year.

If you hold an iPhone, a Samsung phone, and one of the new Nokia phones with Windows software side by side, there are two that look very similar, and one that looks a lot different. Microsoft isn't copying Apple.

 

[AdrianK]

I am just going to leave this here

Image

I'd just like to add this to the Galaxy discussion:

 

[jsh1120]

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D, much of which goes nowhere. Look at Bell Labs, birthplace of the transistor. It was a research facility that patented thousands (nearly 30,000) of its developments - the vast majority of which went nowhere. So this is nothing new. Apple, Google, Microsoft - they all employ engineers who come up with ideas - not all good, but many which are patentable. Yes, it "locks in" their rights to challenge others who may use it, but that's how it works for anyone who develops anything patentable. And if they're "utterly ridiculous" then why would any other company want to implement them?

Your comment is a reasonable statement of how patents are supposed to work, a concept drawn largely from an industrial revolution era model of what qualifies for a "patent." Unfortunately, the world of "patentable" ideas has morphed significantly in the last half century.

We now face a world in which companies purchase firms solely to gain ownership of patents in the hope they can use them as leverage in negotiations with competitors. We also face a world in which firms seek to "patent" such ideas as a rectangular electronic device with a transparent screen where touch input is supported.

Apple's efforts to patent virtually every "gesture" that might be used on a screen enables them to claim (successfully or not) that any gesture implemented by a competitor is substantially identical to what Apple has already patented. And whether the claim is upheld or not, the result is significant legal overhead that is then passed on to consumers for no discernible benefit.

As you point out, there are real world benefits in protecting a firm's R&D expenses in order to promote innovation. But just how much "R&D" has Apple invested in making up new "gestures?"

The point is not that Apple is acting inappropriately given the current state of affairs. The point is that the entire patent system is broken. R&D isn't promoted in an environment where the cost of R&D is dwarfed by the cost of assuring that whatever is being developed might already be the subject of a patent of some sort.

We all benefit from companies taking risks to develop new ideas. We don't benefit when that effort is hobbled by litigation costs.

 

[poloponies]

1.
we're not talking about patents for innovation. everyone is for that in some shape or form. we're talking about vague and overly broad patents, patents that are actually copies of previous innovations, patent trolls, and buying up patents to true innovations in order to PREVENT their use.

2.
when a company can threaten to sue individual developers (as happened just a few months ago) and force them to pay out protection money in a mafia-like way using vague patents it bought up (absolutely no innovation from the patent trolls, who are often fronts for larger companies), or major companies can battle one another over patent infringements that even patent lawyers don't understand well, then we have a broken system.

3.
it is new. very new.
can you name another case in history when a company gained injunctions against a competitor in several major markets worldwide over a patent dispute? apple wisely did this shortly before the product launch in order to cost samsung untold millions of dollars.

beyond apple and samsung, texas is where some of the most bloody patent battles are being fought for hundreds of millions of dollars. no innovation there. just patents being bought up by patent trolls.

First of all, you're conflating a few arguments. I was responding to jsh's post where he was expressing outrage over Apple patenting gestures that he did not believe they would ever use.

TRY READING WHAT's WRITTEN rather than what you want to respond to.

As far as injunctions costing Samsung "millions of dollars" you're unclear as to how these things work. The company seeking the injunction runs the risk of paying for losses if they're wrong. The plaintiff generally posts a bond which will be forfeited if they're simply trying to bully the other company.

Funny how everybody here becomes a patent law expert with zero training or education, doesn't participate in the legal filings or court hearings but purports to know what's "right" or "fair."

There are highly paid lawyers on both sides and Samsung has a full opportunity to defend themselves. And if they believe the Judges are wrong then they have a right to appeal the decisions. It's not a matter of Apple "bullying" anyone.

 

[palpatine]

Your comment is a reasonable statement of how patents are supposed to work, a concept drawn largely from an industrial revolution era model of what qualifies for a "patent." Unfortunately, the world of "patentable" ideas has morphed significantly in the last half century.

We now face a world in which companies purchase firms solely to gain ownership of patents in the hope they can use them as leverage in negotiations with competitors. We also face a world in which firms seek to "patent" such ideas as a rectangular electronic device with a transparent screen where touch input is supported.

Apple's efforts to patent virtually every "gesture" that might be used on a screen enables them to claim (successfully or not) that any gesture implemented by a competitor is substantially identical to what Apple has already patented. And whether the claim is upheld or not, the result is significant legal overhead that is then passed on to consumers for no discernible benefit.

As you point out, there are real world benefits in protecting a firm's R&D expenses in order to promote innovation. But just how much "R&D" has Apple invested in making up new "gestures?"

The point is not that Apple is acting inappropriately given the current state of affairs. The point is that the entire patent system is broken. R&D isn't promoted in an environment where the cost of R&D is dwarfed by the cost of assuring that whatever is being developed might already be the subject of a patent of some sort.

We all benefit from companies taking risks to develop new ideas. We don't benefit when that effort is hobbled by litigation costs.

+10 back at you

Exactly. I think we are all for innovation and profit off of it. The system is not working that way now.

I am sure that any reforms in the system will be extremely complex because we are talking about complex ideas. But, at the end of the day, it needs to work to support innovation, and I don't see that right now.

As consumers, we can pile onto one side or another in this debate that has been marketed to us, but in the end, we lose no matter which side wins. How sad is that?

EDIT: @poloponies. Sorry you thought I didn't read what you wrote. I thought that I did and responded to the valid points you raised about innovation/r+d/patents. I am not a patent law attorney. However, I have translated patents, discussed some of these issues with patent law attorneys, and try to follow developments in the field as closely as a non-specialist can.

There is a lot of hype around these cases and I don't know all of the details. People love to say that Samsung lawyers (we all know lawyers are tech gurus) couldn't distinguish between apple and samsung tablets. However, records of court proceedings by reliable sources said that one of the attorneys actually did after another of his fellows said he couldn't tell them apart. This is the kind of spin that non-specialists like us have to try and wade through.

Here is one of the patents related to the Australia case.
http://apa.hpa.com.au:8080/ipapa/iv_pdf.pdf?report=ipapa&index=1&doc=1781761

With broad patents like this, I think we are in for years and years of disputes. As for the costs, they weigh differently in different countries, with the Australian market being one of the least expensive. I do not know all of the calculations that went into Apple's decision, but given their massive funding, huge patent portfolio, and brilliant timing, I think they will come out ahead.

 

[*LTD*]

That well may be the case. The question then becomes how consumers benefit from such pissing contests among international conglomerates.

Consumer benefit is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with consumer benefit. It's a "property dispute" between two entities. If a product is affected as a result, then the consumer simply gets what they get. If something is no longer on the shelf or is replaced by something else, it's incidental. Some other entity is free to step in and fill the void. The market itself will weed everything out.

 

[jsh1120]

Consumer benefit is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with consumer benefit. It's a "property dispute" between two entities. If a product is affected as a result, then the consumer simply gets what they get. If something is no longer on the shelf or is replaced by something else, it's incidental. Some other entity is free to step in and fill the void. The market itself will weed everything out.

Sorry. You need to read your Adam Smith more closely. The point of a free market is consumer benefit. The point of a patent system is not to protect the holder of a patent except as a means to an end, i.e. to encourage invention and innovation for the society as a whole.

Markets require regulation. Without it, as Adam Smith pointed out, monopolies and oligopolies result and that, by definition, is not a "free market."