I still cant get over how ridiculous these lawsuits are. They are "similar" in looks - granted - but once you turn them on they are completely different. To me it is like Apple suing Dell if they sell White Computers because they look like Mac's. Or suing Viewsonic for making White displays because they look like Apple Displays. Makes me laugh every time i see them sue. And the idea that some people may get them confused??? Come on - that is even more ridiculous.
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.
Samsung Galaxy Tablet Ban in Australia Lifted, Apple to Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The bottom line is this:
All companies have a legal right to protect their intellectual property. All companies. That includes Apple.
There is a problem when not even the lawyers of Samsung are unable to identify the product were retained to argue for from 10 feet. It's shameless. One should be able to resolve the difference between two products as quickly as a kid finds Waldo in an empty room.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111014
"Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away."
It's not a belief, it's not a think so, it's not a probability. Samsung did copy the look and feel of an Apple product. That's why Mrs. Sullivan couldn't even correctly identify each respective product from a mere 10 feet away.
Innovation is strangled by actions such as Samsung. Instead of putting their noses to the grind stone and coming up with something unique, ground breaking and beautifully designed they took easy street. They decided not to come up with something new. They decided not to innovate. They decided to copy.
If Honda decides to copy the body style and design of BMW where you couldn't tell the difference between the two standing from 10 feet away don't you think BMW would sue? Come on man!
It's a tough pill to swallow if you hate Apple or love Samsung. Best to swallow and move along and let the courts decide how much Samsung infringed on Apple intellectual property.
All companies have a legal right to protect their intellectual property. All companies. That includes Apple.
There is a problem when not even the lawyers of Samsung are unable to identify the product were retained to argue for from 10 feet. It's shameless. One should be able to resolve the difference between two products as quickly as a kid finds Waldo in an empty room.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111014
"Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away."
It's not a belief, it's not a think so, it's not a probability. Samsung did copy the look and feel of an Apple product. That's why Mrs. Sullivan couldn't even correctly identify each respective product from a mere 10 feet away.
Innovation is strangled by actions such as Samsung. Instead of putting their noses to the grind stone and coming up with something unique, ground breaking and beautifully designed they took easy street. They decided not to come up with something new. They decided not to innovate. They decided to copy.
If Honda decides to copy the body style and design of BMW where you couldn't tell the difference between the two standing from 10 feet away don't you think BMW would sue? Come on man!
It's a tough pill to swallow if you hate Apple or love Samsung. Best to swallow and move along and let the courts decide how much Samsung infringed on Apple intellectual property.
So a judge that sides with you is smart and the one that doesn't is an idiot!
What's your qualification by the way?
But you're wrong.
The screen is different, different size.
The back is totally different and you are not acknowledging that
Soooooo....You have no point
Are you serious mate? So you don't think that an Australian who is shelling out several hundred dollars for a product has enough intelligence to distinguish between two very different products?
They aren't defending their IP. Apple didn't even invent the tablet concept, tablet PC's have been around 10+ years. But most importantly, no one is going to confuse a Galaxy and an iPad. No one. There are only so many ways you can make a rectangle and Apple doesn't own the rectangle shape, which is essentially what they are claiming.
----------
I think he's being sarcastic.
Maybe because design-wise it would be like buying bootleg.
The iPad design is a patented design, which means nobody is legally allowed to copy it without permission of Apple.
Same thing happens in the music industry:
Remember the song "Ice, Ice Baby", that almost everyone (not me!) loved?
Just that little rhythm part that got pulled out of a Queen's song ("Under Pressure") was enough for Vanilla Ice to get sued and loose the case.
Why buy the copycat product when you can get the real thing?
Either way, banned or not banned, Samsung will discontinue it as soon as they come up with a newer version, leaving all their users hanging out of a window with no updates, upgrades, incompatible software, etc. So imagine that!
I have already learned my lesson with HTC. So why there's still people who don't get that???
I'm pretty sure Apple has no problem paying legal fees. They make billions each quarter and have enough cash on hand to spend on virtually anything they like.
When it comes to paying bills, it's safe to assume Tim Cook and the folks in accounting know what they're doing. I'd be a little more worried about the competitions' financial excesses, quite frankly. Apple is quite prudent when it comes to spending.
Apple loses nothing by pursuing this matter. There is barely any demand for Samsung tablets. The ban was not worldwide, and they had the entire US market open to them, but have only sold (according to someone's claim here earlier) around 20,000 of them. Even if that's sold and not shipped, that's next to nothing.
Further, barely any of this registers in the consumer consciousness. As if they care about Apple's legal activities! If you think they're going to decide against getting the hottest tech devices out there out of some interest in lawsuits, then I wish you all the best in whatever alternate dimension or galaxy you live in. Apple's lawsuits will have as much effect on their sales as they've always had: zero.
Apple is essentially causing as much damage as they can to an already proven infringer, virtually sight unseen (and out of mind) by the consumer, with enough money to continue this indefinitely, with every indication that Apple gear will sell in the usual numbers with the usual profits that go with those sales.
The only loser in all this is Samsung and Samsung's customers. In fact, they've already lost in the marketplace with their tablet. This is just Apple making an example of them in order to send a message to others.
Last edited:
This is officially the end of the era of the iPad.(j/k)
It will be interesting to see if the High Court extends the stay, or if not, how many people actually buy the Galaxy Tab. It hasn't exactly been a hot seller here in the US.
Notice that the ruling provided certain conditions, including keeping track of all purchases, etc.
This would hint that the judges have their doubts over their ruling being challenged in any way, considering there are so many International Patent Laws that have to be respected.
Yea, can say the same about my iPhone 4 (CDMA) and my wife's (GSM) - if I look longer, I see the difference on the antenna band and the missing GSM slot as well as that it says Verizon or AT&T. Heck, we even have different backgrounds and different Apps installed.
Samsung decided to imitate instead of innovate.
They have the power and resources to make something beyond the tablet, but it seems to be an oriental tradition to imitate and mass produce what other already created. If no one believe me, just go to AliBaba.com and search for your favorite product, and find a huge list of unlicensed copies of anything you could imagine.
Really? If it is a "patented" design, why Apple had sued Samsung for it in Australia?
If it is a "patented" design, why Dutch courts doesn't think Samsung infringes it?
Not necessarily. If you are trying to protect IP, you need to do it aggressively and consistently. You can't pick and choose, although if there are several violators you can choose who to go after first. In those cases, you want to go after the weaker one, trying to set a precedent as cheaply as possible.
Depends on the IP laws of the country in question. Not everyone will use the same benchmarks, and some take the issue more seriously than others.
Sure. That tells me how they think: "Damn! We are caught pants down stealing! Let's make it a little less obvious..."
Sure. That tells me how they think: "Damn! We are caught pants down stealing! Let's make it a little less obvious..."
Oriental style: apply a sticker to it to change it's appearance.
----------
They had to start somewhere, right? Wherever it moves faster.
And, not all cultures think alike, maybe a reason why the Dutch have their doubts.
If their own lawyers had trouble identifying the correct device, imagine the general public.
Now, as for precedence: Remember the case of "Windows vs Lindows"???
As silly as it may seem, I'm sure you already know the result.
your lack of knowledge of oriental tradition is clear from that post. not to mention it's condescending to an extent. what does it have to do with Alibaba.com? it's no different from ebay.com or even amazon.com?
can you be specific about the imitation part? you know, give specific examples?
I think Apple is trying to set an example. A lot of times companies sue other companies for millions of dollars knowing fully that they are not harming their business in any shape or form, but they sue them to set an example / inconvinience them.
A friend of mine works at a very small firm that sued former employees for 'fedility duty', claimed millions of dollars in loses. My friend told me that the 'loss' was unrealistic as it was double what the firm has ever grossed. Nonetheless, there IS a case that has been running for years now.