Who had a camera first...the iPad or the Tab?
Or Samsung "stole" Apple's iPad 2 when they had that design "in mind" prior to its release.
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.
German Injunction Against Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 Upheld
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or Samsung "stole" Apple's iPad 2 when they had that design "in mind" prior to its release.
I never said the Netherlands had no competition laws. The Netherlands do not have an equivalent of the German laws against unfair competition ("Unlauterer Wettbewerb"). As it happens, neither have the USA. Which may explain why you don't get it. Type "Unlauterer Wettbewerb" into Google, and you will find a nice explanation (in German
And since Apple didn't just try to get a Europe wide ban from the court in Düsseldorf but actually got it (until the court was told by the proper court they had no right to make a Europe wide judgement), I'd say it is not Apple to blame here, but the court in Düsseldorf. And Apple doesn't have to go very high up for a ban in Europe (except the Netherlands), just to the right court which I believe is in Spain.
I'm British so I'm not sure what laws America does and does not have has to do with this?
And I do 'get it' I get that it's a stupid law and that Apple jumped onto it to block consumers from having choice and increase market share.
And if as you are stating then, Germany has such fantastic laws against people copying other peoples drawings, then just why does no other country including the US have them then? I would guess because they are flawed.
Really? I think you'll find it's right, it's the way Apple does business. It's a FACT Apple is going to loose market share to Android, it's also a FACT I see with my own eyes more people in the office ditching Apple and going with Samsung.
And Cisco has not agreed for Apple to use the iPhone name, they were still in talks the very night before the day Jobs announced the 'iPhone' much to Cisco's disgust. Google it if you don't believe it, to flaimbait, your choice.
Might be of interest to you:
http://news.cnet.com/Cisco-sues-App...demark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=mncol;txt
You know, the fact that Cisco did NOT give Apple permission to use the iPhone name and Apple stated in that report:
Fresh off one of the biggest launches in its history, a product Jobs called one of the most exciting products he's ever worked on, the company dug in its heels. "We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.
"There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."
So yeah, Apple isn't arrogant at all, stealing a name from another communication providers patent portfolio without their permission then stating they have little right to it... wow Apple innovates, IN BENDING THE LAW!
Cisco had previously challenged others using the name, something the Apple spokesperson left out, as well as the fact Cisco had products with the iPhone name, plus that Cisco brought the patent amongst others in 2000, YEARS before Apple launched it's iPhone.
So I guess Apple is a patent troll after all. It has certainly behaved like one choosing to ignore the law.
Wow, everyone, this person has spoken, NO ONE ON MAC RUMOURS HAS ANY BUSINESS EXPERIENCE! FACT!
Go on then, give us proof to back up you ridiculous and blanket statement.
Are you talking about the indie developers or the multi million operations, or the MANY MANY MANY one hit wonders? Because a few of the bedroom/ indie developers do however it's also a known fact they sometimes release their work on Android too, and that Android gets games first that then come to iOS.
But the industry is peanuts compared to consoles, how ever I don't expect you even play games (See I'm making a statement about you with no facts just like you did above).
So if anyone does state on here that Apple has 'revolutionised' mobile gaming or gaming in general it shows I'm afraid just how little you know.
Touch Screen only controls will always ruin the gameplay when compared to console and PC games.
Perhaps you should ask yourself what percentage of current handheld developers that are exclusive to iOS are well known or even ever heard off?
Wow, your denial is on a truly stunning level if you think Apple offers value and doesn't 'over charge' for it's products! I bet you believe every Apple product has some magic in it that makes it cost more then the equivalent competing product?
Last edited:
As my Sig says
"If apple could sue God for the ten commandments being on tablets of stone they would"...
"If apple could sue God for the ten commandments being on tablets of stone they would"...
I've lost a lot of respect for Apple over this. They suck. They have become the corporate monster that Microsoft was.
I hope Samsung continue to make and release great tablet computers.
I hope Samsung continue to make and release great tablet computers.
A difference I noticed between German and American courts
German courts tend to toss frivolous suits very quickly. Those crazy product liability suits you hear about here pretty much don't exist over there. But then most lawyers wouldn't take on such a case in the first place.
Let me put it this way, I never saw a car sun screen in Germany with the text "Entfernen bevor der Fahrt" ("Remove before Driving"). It's considered common sense, and nobody would sue the sun screen company if he drove with it on and had an accident. Or at least such a suit would go nowhere.
German courts tend to toss frivolous suits very quickly. Those crazy product liability suits you hear about here pretty much don't exist over there. But then most lawyers wouldn't take on such a case in the first place.
Let me put it this way, I never saw a car sun screen in Germany with the text "Entfernen bevor der Fahrt" ("Remove before Driving"). It's considered common sense, and nobody would sue the sun screen company if he drove with it on and had an accident. Or at least such a suit would go nowhere.
I am curious, what makes you say that? It seems to me as if most new apps launch on iOS and expand to Android later. Any sort of numbers to back this up?
Cisco's right to "iPhone" was tenuous at best
In 2000 Cisco bought a company called InfoGear and with it acquired the iPhone trademark. Then Cisco brought out NO PRODUCTS using that name between 2000 and 2006. The trademark was due to expire in November 2005.
Then Apple approaches them about the trademark. Their trademark was going to be considered abandoned in November 2005 unless Cisco could show actual use of the trademark in commerce, which meant it had no value for sale to Apple -- Apple could just pick it up. Cisco paid a fee and took advantage of a grace period, and with about a week to go to deadline filed the Declaration of Use in May 2006 to keep the trademark alive.
But there's a problem. Cisco wasn't using "iPhone" in commerce as required to keep the trademark alive. Cisco had never once released a product called "iPhone." The product photos they sent to the USPTO to show use of the mark in commerce were fraudulent. They were photos of the Linksys CIT200 Cordless Internet Telephony Kit with an "iPhone" lablel slapped on the front of the box over the product name. The rest of the box referred to the actual name of the device as it was being used in commerce at the time. It had never been sold as the iPhone as of this time as claimed. Fraud makes an application to the USPTO null and void. The trademark was all but officially dead.
Cisco didn't bother to start selling this product as the "iPhone" until December 2006, long after the trademark had expired, and no new trademark was ever applied for. And even then the product manuals and documentation still referred to it under the original name, only the box and the description on the web site had changed. It was obviously still a hack job designed to hold on to the name in light of Apple wanting to use it, trying to drive a more lucrative sale price of the name.
So, basically, Cisco had abandoned the iPhone trademark by the time Apple got around to wanting it, and Apple was free to use it. From Apple's point of view the talks were merely to avoid a court battle that Apple would have definitely won due to Cisco's abandonment of the mark and subsequent provable fraud committed on the USPTO. But the court battle could have interfered with the release of the iPhone, so Apple needed the issue resolved quickly.
In 2000 Cisco bought a company called InfoGear and with it acquired the iPhone trademark. Then Cisco brought out NO PRODUCTS using that name between 2000 and 2006. The trademark was due to expire in November 2005.
Then Apple approaches them about the trademark. Their trademark was going to be considered abandoned in November 2005 unless Cisco could show actual use of the trademark in commerce, which meant it had no value for sale to Apple -- Apple could just pick it up. Cisco paid a fee and took advantage of a grace period, and with about a week to go to deadline filed the Declaration of Use in May 2006 to keep the trademark alive.
But there's a problem. Cisco wasn't using "iPhone" in commerce as required to keep the trademark alive. Cisco had never once released a product called "iPhone." The product photos they sent to the USPTO to show use of the mark in commerce were fraudulent. They were photos of the Linksys CIT200 Cordless Internet Telephony Kit with an "iPhone" lablel slapped on the front of the box over the product name. The rest of the box referred to the actual name of the device as it was being used in commerce at the time. It had never been sold as the iPhone as of this time as claimed. Fraud makes an application to the USPTO null and void. The trademark was all but officially dead.
Cisco didn't bother to start selling this product as the "iPhone" until December 2006, long after the trademark had expired, and no new trademark was ever applied for. And even then the product manuals and documentation still referred to it under the original name, only the box and the description on the web site had changed. It was obviously still a hack job designed to hold on to the name in light of Apple wanting to use it, trying to drive a more lucrative sale price of the name.
So, basically, Cisco had abandoned the iPhone trademark by the time Apple got around to wanting it, and Apple was free to use it. From Apple's point of view the talks were merely to avoid a court battle that Apple would have definitely won due to Cisco's abandonment of the mark and subsequent provable fraud committed on the USPTO. But the court battle could have interfered with the release of the iPhone, so Apple needed the issue resolved quickly.
To continue an active trademark as Cisco requested, the law requires: "an affidavit setting forth those goods or services recited in the registration on or in connection with which the mark is in use in commerce and such number of specimens or facsimiles showing current use of the mark as may be required by the Director"
Furthermore, USPTO regs say "A §8 Declaration of Continued Use is a sworn statement, filed by the owner of a registration, that the mark is in use in commerce. Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1058."
Sworn statement. Mark is in use in commerce. Specimen showing mark is in use in commerce. Here is what Cisco submitted as being currently in use in commerce as of May 2006:
Like the slapped-on label? Cisco did not actually sell that phone, or any product for that matter, under the iPhone name until December 2006. At the time, and for the next seven months, Cisco was selling that phone as the Linksys CIT200 Cordless Internet Telephony Kit (you can still see the real name of the product at the bottom and on the side of the box).
That's not just fraud, that's perjury (sworn statement).
So why did Apple and Cisco have to have discussions in the first place or even eventually reach an agreement over the name? If the patent for the name was about to run out? Which I think is what I'm getting from your comment?
Because Apple was in a hurry. They needed the "iPhone" name in a matter of weeks. And litigation, even on something as straightforward as this, would have taken months.
Nobody denies that Cisco had acquired the "iPhone" name. But it is quite a stretch to say that they'd done anything with it. Was Cisco hard-nosed in its negotiations with Apple? Absolutely. Does that make them "bad" people? Thats for people to do decide for themselves. They certainly didn't make too many friends at Apple, but they are in business - not a social club.
But whatever conclusions you want to draw here, don't kid yourself that Apple - at least in relation to the "iPhone" name - was the "bad guy." They weren't.
Because Cisco pulled one over on the US Patent and Trademark Office. Cisco got the trademark renewed, which meant Apple would have to fight for it instead of it just falling to Apple, which had applied for it through a subsidiary.
However, Cisco committed fraud in the renewal, which means Apple could have it thrown out in court, and Apple would be the owner. The problem is how long that would have taken. Apple couldn't take the risk that a court case (even one it was guaranteed to win) could take so long as to delay the iPhone's release. So Apple had to negotiate with Cisco.
Note that Cisco basically gave away the trademark in the end. They got nothing but a vague mutual promise to try for "interoperability" that never produced anything. Cisco knew it didn't have a case.
Better to just give it up than have your fraud exposed in court.
The "Apple tax" myth was always predicated on selective ignorance of precisely the areas where Apple focuses most on providing value. Continuing to believe in and propogate the myth at a time when Apple is beating competitors outright on price is both inexplicable and inexcusable.
http://betanews.com/2011/08/23/ultrabook-cant-beat-macbook-air-pricing/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/technology/07tablet.html
You clearly don't understand what the current mobile gaming market consists of... You wish to hold to an existence of five years ago. Trust me that Nintendo and Sony are both really concerned with the advent of the iOS platform and the impact it is having on their mobile game business.
As I mentioned earlier, the number of companies thriving in the mobile gaming space has grown geometrically because of iOS. Dismissing games you don't like as being for Soccer Moms does not change that fact. The future of gaming and the money in gaming is going to be in the mobile space and it is going to be for the soccer moms.
Good thing you do not make a living working in the gaming industry as you would have a very tough road ahead of you being so ignorant of what has happened, what is happening and what will be happing.
----------
Since the later game probably had a 20 million dollar budget and angry birds probably had a budget in the six figures, I don't know who do you think?
As the balance of gaming continues to shift in favor of casual players where do you think the future is going to be?
Your example is dumb. All it does is prove all this posturing by hardcore gamers is serious denial about the future of gaming, especially mobile gaming.
People don't just buy Angry Birds. They buy 15 $1 games, so you have 15 games making a seven figure revenue on a six figure budget. There is less risk, which means more opportunity.
With that point I agree.
Now that developers are diversifying between Android and iOS for their mobile games. The space is changing vastly, and I would imagine that Game centric phones from Android are only around the corner.
How hard would it be for someone to make an Android phone that has slide out game controls, or a case that has controller hardware for an iPhone, or iPod Touch? The doors are open, it is just matter of time for the external hardware (with regards to control interfaces) to catch up with the internal hardware capability.
There are already Android competitors for the iPod touch appearing on the Market, so that would enable developers to reach a new market segment for buyers who are seeking an open alternative to the iOS iPod Touch.
-------
One multipurpose device has a lot of power in the marketplace. Just look at the decline Compact Digital camera and PDA space since the Smart Phone market has grown stronger / more advanced.
Absolutely. The trend is toward integration of multiple devices into one device that can do everything. This is why the iPhone has enjoyed the success it has had to date.
I am concerned for the future of the iPod Touch, as devices such as the one you have proposed will likely come to Android soon, whereas I can't see Apple adding buttons and controls to a device. So the Android equivalent of the iPod Touch may actually turn out to be the "iPod killer" that has been rumored for more than a decade, and could end up being a Gameboy and PSP killer, as well.
If case manufacturers create a gaming case for the iPod Touch, similar to the Atari iPad device, I can see the iPod Touch still being a highly viable option for gaming.
It just depends on if there is enough money in that market space for manufactures to develop, and build such devices.
Umm... if you're going to use a game with a $20m budget as an example then you should know those types of games sell at least 1m copies.
Its going to be the same as it is today. Casual gamers will get stuff like 100 crappy versions of tetris or the crumbs leftover from real games because casual gamers only want to spend $1 for games.
I love how people try to brag about how much money angry birds made as some sort of proof that casual gaming is the future. MW2 made $500m in its first week alone and over $1b since it came out. Real gaming isnt going anywhere.
Around the corner ? Sony has been shipping one for months now :
Sony is committed to Android and even has a "Playstation" certification program for its devices that run on Android. They are now even shipping a "Playstation" tablet :
http://store.sony.ca/webapp/wcs/sto...0803&langId=200&productId=8198552921666378720
So for one, Sony is fully embracing this revolution and Android doesn't have it "around the corner", it has it right now.