German Court Unlikely to Award Apple Injunction Against Galaxy Tab 10.1N

[charlituna]

I'm sorry but that is flat out not true.

And I would have to say that saying "flat out not true" is being blind to a lot of things. Google's way of doing things was perhaps unique (in terms of the actual software coding) but what they did was rarely to never a new and fresh idea. Heck even the game plan of "take what is happening now and do it better" is not fresh. It's been Apple's strategy for years.

Other things

Search -- Altavista etc
Webmail -- Hotmail, Yahoo
Web based blogging -- LiveJournal
google + -- myspace, Facebook

and so on.

 

[dokujaryu]

Most of the pro-Android people here are not so much anti-Apple but rather anti-Apple-FANBOY. You fanboys really are completely insane. I can never understand the completely ignorant blind loyalty that goes on for a COMPANY, irrespective of product. It makes no sense as a consumer. Get a life guys. Why the heck does it matter who copied who from a CONSUMER standpoint?


Tony

I don't agree with this sentiment in its entirety, but I do agree with the frustration you have with its result. I personally believe that if there are products and brands that you like, there's nothing wrong with supporting that brand. I agree that there's loyalty and blind loyalty, but I think this has a lot more to do with emotions.

I think most people's emotions are about the actual point of patents. Patents were designed not to protect giant megacorporations like Apple, but to protect the little guy, the idea man. I talked with a lawyer on a plane recently about his cases involving Home Depot blatantly ripping off someone's idea for a product and paying them nothing.
http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/2010/06/home-depot-ordered-to-pay-millions-to-an-inventor/

So, the idea of someone defending their invention is a david vs. golliath sort of emotional situation, and people who are brand loyal to Apple want to see the "little guy" (yeah right) win in the end. But neither one of these guys are little, so I think this emotion is misplaced.

As an Open Source developer, I have to say that while Open Source is wholly built from the ground up new, many open source products are built from the ground up to be a very close copy of something outrageously expensive or simply proprietary and unavailable to the general public. To the Android fans, I think this must feel more like the SCO vs. Linux trials problems of the late 2000's. Who was the bad guy to me? SCO. Because to me, their claim of ownership was bogus and I am a Linux dork. SCO is the evil giant megacorporation trying to "take down" my open source heroes. What *******s.

But, here we are again with misplaced emotions. In that case, SCOs claim to copyright was indeed bogus. Furthermore, Google and Samsung are just as much a Megacorporation as Apple. Where's the little guy being protected or the revolutionaries fighting the man? Neither really exist.

(OMG REDHAT COPY WINDOWS: SUE THEM REDMOND!!!)

I don't buy all of Apples claims of copying and I don't think patents are being used properly. But I equally don't buy these nonsense arguments that "there's only so many ways to make a tablet / OS" or "those two products look nothing alike".

(Look man, there's only so many ways to make a white male action hero look, OK?)

(Sup Son? )

 

[The Great Boony]

Well The Great Boony and macfanboi87(who I'm sure are the same person) are saying Apple is Jesus and that they invented everything.

Look at the pictures FFS

1) Apple had been working on a Phone OS
2) Two employees leave iOS project to join Google
3) Android changes from a clone of Blackberry, to a clone of iOS

And that's the story

 

[AJH1993]

Other things

Search -- Altavista etc
Webmail -- Hotmail, Yahoo
Web based blogging -- LiveJournal
google + -- myspace, Facebook

and so on.

Hilarious. Those sound like competitors other than copies. I'm guessing you've never used Google outside of search.

 

[charlituna]

You are telling me that eric schmidt didn't leave Apple and join Google?
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/03/googles-eric-schmidt-resigns-from-apple-board-over-conflict-of/

holy crap man. Didn't know you were that bad

So is your reading comprehension.

The conflict of interest was because Schmidt was at Google while on the Apple Board.

And again, you implied that the person in question was an Engineer or such and Schmidt wasn't. He was on the board with access to who knows how much information.

 

[Oletros]

Look at the pictures FFS

1) Apple had been working on a Phone OS ->Right

And that's thestory

Corrected, you're welcome

 

[samcraig]

And your evidence that Apple Ping failed?

Even if it did. Google has a lot more failures than Apple

Seriously? You think PING is a success? And Google + is a failure? Ok. At least we know where your bias is.

And maybe Google has more failures because they are constantly trying to create new services. Naturally they will have more failures. They have more possibilities for failure. It's simple math.

And I would argue that Apple has had several failures that were far more visible than Google has via their online Apps which were not only beta but also a part of an area called LABS.

But you don't really care about any of the above. Google sucks and Apple rocks. Ok?

 

[macfanboi87]

I don't agree with this sentiment in its entirety, but I do agree with the frustration you have with its result. I personally believe that if there are products and brands that you like, there's nothing wrong with supporting that brand. I agree that there's loyalty and blind loyalty, but I think this has a lot more to do with emotions.

Image

I think most people's emotions are about the actual point of patents. Patents were designed not to protect giant megacorporations like Apple, but to protect the little guy, the idea man. I talked with a lawyer on a plane recently about his cases involving Home Depot blatantly ripping off someone's idea for a product and paying them nothing.
http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/2010/06/home-depot-ordered-to-pay-millions-to-an-inventor/

So, the idea of someone defending their invention is a david vs. golliath sort of emotional situation, and people who are brand loyal to Apple want to see the "little guy" (yeah right) win in the end. But neither one of these guys are little, so I think this emotion is misplaced.

As an Open Source developer, I have to say that while Open Source is wholly built from the ground up new, many open source products are built from the ground up to be a very close copy of something outrageously expensive or simply proprietary and unavailable to the general public. To the Android fans, I think this must feel more like the SCO vs. Linux trials problems of the late 2000's. Who was the bad guy to me? SCO. Because to me, their claim of ownership was bogus and I am a Linux dork. SCO is the evil giant megacorporation trying to "take down" my open source heroes. What *******s.

Image

But, here we are again with misplaced emotions. In that case, SCOs claim to copyright was indeed bogus. Furthermore, Google and Samsung are just as much a Megacorporation as Apple. Where's the little guy being protected or the revolutionaries fighting the man? Neither really exist.

Image
(OMG REDHAT COPY WINDOWS: SUE THEM REDMOND!!!)

I don't buy all of Apples claims of copying and I don't think patents are being used properly. But I equally don't buy these nonsense arguments that "there's only so many ways to make a tablet / OS" or "those two products look nothing alike".

Image
(Look man, there's only so many ways to make a white male action hero look, OK?)

lol mark has been to prison matt hasn't. Your argument is totally invalid jk I always thought God should be sued for that too.

Redhat is open source (non profit) they can do what they like

 

[charlituna]

Hilarious. Those sound like competitors other than copies. I'm guessing you've never used Google outside of search.

Actually I have. Many things. but that's moot.

You commented that the statement that Google had never had an original idea was 'flat out wrong'. I replied that you could be the one that is flat out wrong because in fact, for everything Google has done, there was someone else that did it first. Meaning it wasn't "an original idea"

And while I never claimed that they weren't competitors lets remember that they were before Google so if there copies it was Google doing it, not the other side. Again, not 'an original idea'.

If you want to retort on the issue, find something that Google dreamt up that didn't come from some other company's idea and then we can talk. But I will be very surprised if you can.

 

[samcraig]

Look at the pictures FFS

1) Apple had been working on a Phone OS
2) Two employees leave iOS project to join Google
3) Android changes from a clone of Blackberry, to a clone of iOS

And that's the story

Android is an OS. It can't be a close of Blackberry.

Again - Android is an OS.

Blackberry is hardware. The phone you showed in a previous post is HARDWARE.

 

[The Great Boony]

Seriously? You think PING is a success? And Google + is a failure? Ok. At least we know where your bias is.

And maybe Google has more failures because they are constantly trying to create new services. Naturally they will have more failures. They have more possibilities for failure. It's simple math.

And I would argue that Apple has had several failures that were far more visible than Google has via their online Apps which were not only beta but also a part of an area called LABS.

But you don't really care about any of the above. Google sucks and Apple rocks. Ok?

Ping is better than FB and Twitter IMO

 

[AJH1993]

Actually I have. Many things. but that's moot.

You commented that the statement that Google had never had an original idea was 'flat out wrong'. I replied that you could be the one that is flat out wrong because in fact, for everything Google has done, there was someone else that did it first. Meaning it wasn't "an original idea"

And while I never claimed that they weren't competitors lets remember that they were before Google so if there copies it was Google doing it, not the other side. Again, not 'an original idea'.

If you want to retort on the issue, find something that Google dreamt up that didn't come from some other company's idea and then we can talk. But I will be very surprised if you can.

How about Google Adsense
Google Maps
Google Navigation, which to this date remains the most advanced cellphone GPS app
Google Docs
Google Wallet
Google Fiber
Google Talk.

Just to name a few. By the way do you know what the difference between a copy and a competition? A copy would be Ford making a car and Chevy making a car that looked exactly like it.

 

[The Great Boony]

How about Google Adsense
Google Maps
Google Navigation, which to this date remains the most advanced cellphone GPS app
Google Docs
Google Wallet
Google Fiber
Google Talk.

Just to name a few. By the way do you know what the difference between a copy and a competition? A copy would be Ford making a car and Chevy making a car that looked exactly like it.

Lol, you're joking right?

 

[samcraig]

Ping is better than FB and Twitter IMO

Of course in your opinion. That's not really a revelation based on your posting history in this thread. LOL

 

[iBug2]

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

You forgot to post the other early device they had. The on that looked like the iphone before the iphone.

Quoting from the article:

The interesting thing here is that the release of the SDK with support for touch and large screens, as well as the release of this video and hardware reference design took place one month before the infamous photograph of the BlackBerry-esque device. This means that Google wasn't working with just one prototype, but several, which really shouldn't be a surprise at all, if you think about what Google wanted Android to be.

Release of the SDK is November 2007, That's 11 months after the iPhone introduction. So the first photo showing Android running on multitouch hardware is 11 months after the iPhone introduction?

To be honest, this even surprises me. I always thought that stuff people kept talking about dated prior to iPhone.

 

[The Great Boony]

Android is an OS. It can't be a close of Blackberry.

Again - Android is an OS.

Blackberry is hardware. The phone you showed in a previous post is HARDWARE.

I was talking about the software, maybe I should have made that clearer.

 

[dokujaryu]

Redhat is open source (non profit) they can do what they like

Hmm, genuinely interested. Do you have some legal precedence for this statement? Or was it just a joke/troll? I'm not entirely sure the legal ramifications for patent infringement change based on your business model.

Besides, RedHat is a for-profit publicly traded company.

 

[reefoid]

Actually I have. Many things. but that's moot.

You commented that the statement that Google had never had an original idea was 'flat out wrong'. I replied that you could be the one that is flat out wrong because in fact, for everything Google has done, there was someone else that did it first. Meaning it wasn't "an original idea"

And while I never claimed that they weren't competitors lets remember that they were before Google so if there copies it was Google doing it, not the other side. Again, not 'an original idea'.

If you want to retort on the issue, find something that Google dreamt up that didn't come from some other company's idea and then we can talk. But I will be very surprised if you can.

What a ridiculous argument. Just because someone isn't first to market with something doesn't mean they've copied. Its called competition. Going by your argument, only one company should provide email for the entire world's population (as surely all company's following that are copying), all cars should be made by only one company and the whole world should shop at the same supermarket.

Not sure what you're smoking, but I'd lay off it for a while.

Competition != Copying

 

[dokujaryu]

I was talking about the software, maybe I should have made that clearer.

I was also talking about the software... tho the hardware did also look quite similar as well.

 

[BaldiMac]

Same can be said for Android. They didnt see the iPhone July 2007 and then have a fully functional demo by Nov. 2007.

I'm pretty sure Google saw the iPhone in January 2007 like the rest of the world.

Android is an OS. It can't be a close of Blackberry.

Again - Android is an OS.

Blackberry is hardware. The phone you showed in a previous post is HARDWARE.

Umm... Blackberry is also an OS.

Is it not obvious that people are comparing the UI including the input methods? (Obviously, some people overstate things.)

 

[yg17]

They ripped off IOS, infact Google rip off everything, from everyone, I doubt they've ever had an original idea of their own

Except for the notification system, Twitter integration, over the air updates, computer-less activation, wireless sync. Those are all new iOS 5 features copied from Android or other mobile platforms.

 

[iBug2]

I'm pretty sure Google saw the iPhone in January 2007 like the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure Google saw the iPhone in 2006 when Schmidt joined the Apple board. Or at least I don't really think even Jobs could hide stuff from his own board members he handpicked.

 

[AJH1993]

I'm pretty sure Google saw the iPhone in January 2007 like the rest of the world.)

And I'm sure Chevrolet saw the potential for automobiles in 1911, and got ideas from Ford. Bottom line, they're two competitors that shared ideas from each other.

Take that for what it is. Android and iOS are different.

 

[Dbrown]

Android is the 'I can't afford an iPhone

Android probably has that stigma. Gay men have a lot of disposable income and things like status and fashion are important to them, thats why iphones are so popular.

 

[G4DP]

eric schmidt. Told you this in the post before

Just like some bloke called Steve Jobs took all of Google's ideas with him from his time working with Google.

You must be posting just to get a reaction, or your IQ is lower than 50% of number in your username.