No, the Australian case is not about design at all. It's about patents, some of which are about touch gestures.
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
No, the Australian case is not about design at all. It's about patents, some of which are about touch gestures.
You really think so??? I guess you are not aware of the fake iPhones, iPods and iPads, or the fake Apple Stores in China (paste endless list here)... or the known fact by every serious importer to use freight-forwarders in many cases to avoid the chinese from stealing their clients?
This doesn't mean all the Orientals do it. There are very serious businesses I happen to deal with in China. The chinese government is doing a great job to provide a clean image and promote doing business with China.
That being said, the fake Apple Stores are still doing great!
And just so you know, I have nothing against the oriental culture. I'm just recognizing a well known fact.
My second choice for a country for me to be born into is Japan.
Last edited:
Then its a fact that you have never used an android device for more than a few minutes. The whole back button menu button paradigm of android differs very much from the way ios works. The back button in android is quite advanced and there is nothing in ios that works anyway close to how it works. Android also heaily uses the menu button. Also look at the options menus in android. They differ dramatically from ios.
Mmmm... do you mean 'fidelity duty'?
Imagine what would happen if companies started to sue their employees for wasting time in Facebook, instant messaging, and MacRumors Forums?
Maybe that's about all he could take. It wouldn't have been the first time.
The design in general is very close to the iPad. That's the problem.
It deceives the consumer, it creates confusion.
It even confused Samsung lawyers, so imagine that.
Notice how they are covering the identifiable home button on the ipad and that picture is maybe a foot away from the camera. I guarantee I could hold a digital picture frame and an ipad 10 feet away and Jobs himself would not have been able to tell the difference.
Do you think a lawyer for Sony would be able to tell the difference between a Sony tv and a Panasonic tv from 30 feet away if the logo was covered?
No, it's not. Apple has not brought claims on the design in Australia. You're confused as to what cases entail and where.
----------
Anyway, the people that keep repeating that nonsense forget the actual news story :
Not to mention this has nothing to do with this thread's topic as it was not in the Australian suit and the Australian suit is not about the design of the Tab or the iPad or any design or "copying" of designs whatsoever.
Irrelevant to this case.
Geez people, can we actually discuss the Australian case here ?
I know I'm just one person and I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but actually Apple's legal activities was one of the reasons I opted not for a 4S and got a Galaxy SII instead when I was looking to upgrade my 3GS.
BUT I can tell you at least in terms of phones, the iPhone and Galaxy act and feel very different. I'd bet the tablets would be very different as well.
They did identify the product. You also conveniently forgot the next part of the article:
"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.
Last edited:
Nope, Lindows lost the case. They had to rename their product Linspire.
Microsoft won, to everyone's surprise.
No, Microsoft lost the case and then they paid a lot of money to buy the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
5 seconds of search
Last edited:
you are impossible dear. Same case is with Samsung, Google, etc, they all have infinite more cash in comparison to as required for legal proceedings, even IPCOM, basically a patent troll, has enough cash to fight even the biggest players till eternity. It is not about who has more cash, it is about who is actually proven right in the end. Nothing has been proved in the courts till now.
Again and again mentioning a figure provided by Samsung's competitor is a foolish exercise. Tomorrow Acer will say Samsung sold 5000 tablets and you will pounce on the same.
They also stayed their decision until Friday to give Apple time to appeal, which usually indicates they think there is a reasonable possibility that the High Court will grant a longer stay.
Sure. That tells me how they think: "Damn! We are caught pants down stealing! Let's make it a little less obvious..."
No design change here . It was in Germany. In Australia, Appeals court finds out that Apple's patents are very weak and Samsung has very high probability for not infringing them
Don't confuse the average consumer with an Appe drone. The average consumer isn't as stupid as you doesn't need Apple to tell them how they should live their life.
No what happen is it was looking like ms was going to lose the case and to avoid the ruling that the name windows was to genirec ms bought the rights to lindows for a hefty fee.
"Android is a Cheap Copy of iOS. Period"
"Android is a cheap copy of iOS. Period.
My opinion. Facts definitely prove this; but whatever! There is never going to be any consensus on this."
OMG...sooo wrong. Wow. Consensus not needed when we have facts available. Don't try to claim it's your "opinion", you also claim to facts.
FACTS:
First - Android, Inc was founded in 2003...some FOUR YEARS before iOS was released in 2007. Additionally, I remember the founders of Android, Inc discussing their plans to develop an OS for handheld devices in 1999 in a cell phone trade mag (Palm was the leading handheld OS at the time, these guys were hinting at creating a competitor based on a Linux kernel).
The first public Android OS was displayed in the summer of 2005 at a trade show - you can actually find photos of a REAL device running Android in '05...two years before iOS/iPhone release. (yes, it was a demo device, but the fact it was RUNNING before iOS released demonstrates it couldn't have been a copycat.
Now, Apple may have been in development at the time, but to make the claim that Android is a copy of iOS is completely unsupportable, especially given their stated target competition was Palm!
Also, the interface model of iOS is nothing new-the Treo used a touch screen, with icons on multiple home screen pages in 2003 (first Treo was released in 2002, some FOUR YEARS before iPhone!) iOS added nothing substantially different from an interface standpoint. Matter of fact, it was Android that brought the first significant addition with widgets. Oh, yea, the Treo had a "Home" button even...
So please, get the facts straight about the smartphone industry-it existed long before Apple came on the scene (man, you should've seen the Nokia 9000 in the late 90's! Slick!), and the concepts and products were in place with other developers.
"Android is a cheap copy of iOS. Period.
My opinion. Facts definitely prove this; but whatever! There is never going to be any consensus on this."
OMG...sooo wrong. Wow. Consensus not needed when we have facts available. Don't try to claim it's your "opinion", you also claim to facts.
FACTS:
First - Android, Inc was founded in 2003...some FOUR YEARS before iOS was released in 2007. Additionally, I remember the founders of Android, Inc discussing their plans to develop an OS for handheld devices in 1999 in a cell phone trade mag (Palm was the leading handheld OS at the time, these guys were hinting at creating a competitor based on a Linux kernel).
The first public Android OS was displayed in the summer of 2005 at a trade show - you can actually find photos of a REAL device running Android in '05...two years before iOS/iPhone release. (yes, it was a demo device, but the fact it was RUNNING before iOS released demonstrates it couldn't have been a copycat.
Now, Apple may have been in development at the time, but to make the claim that Android is a copy of iOS is completely unsupportable, especially given their stated target competition was Palm!
Also, the interface model of iOS is nothing new-the Treo used a touch screen, with icons on multiple home screen pages in 2003 (first Treo was released in 2002, some FOUR YEARS before iPhone!) iOS added nothing substantially different from an interface standpoint. Matter of fact, it was Android that brought the first significant addition with widgets. Oh, yea, the Treo had a "Home" button even...
So please, get the facts straight about the smartphone industry-it existed long before Apple came on the scene (man, you should've seen the Nokia 9000 in the late 90's! Slick!), and the concepts and products were in place with other developers.
Correct - and why? Because only German countries (Ger/Austria) have "Gebrauchsmuster" as part of infringements. So, it is not even part of this injunction at all. Nevertheless, I stand to my statement: Samsung changed it because they felt caught. If they think that they are right, they would continue to fight for it but they rather change their product. Tells me something...