And if Samsung succeeds in that trial will Apple be hit with treble damages for the lost sales during the two-month injunction?
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 Turning Dispute with Apple to its Advantage in Australian Marketing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well you're missing one thing - its not Cydia, its Cyanogen! I don't know if they have or not.
New apple boss will do the right thing!
All said and done, both Apple and Samsung benefiting from each other. Why this kill each other game that was probably started by Apple, may be for the right reason but will stand to lose on the long run? I salute Steve Jobs for his conviction and product vision but this legal battle going too far not benefiting the customers which Apple is focusing.
Tim Cook, the new CEO seems to be a great guy (already Apple team are appreciated with leave and other perks) and I am sure Jonathan Eve has more wonderful designs under his sleeves others want to emulate (not necessarily a copy!) and it makes Apple as leader in the Tech industry!
For good sake, Apple must be confident that its followers will not leave them because Samsung or others copying them.
Please understand that people that cant afford Apple can have Samsung as an alternative. Both can live happily in this wonderful distorted world invented by the greatest man of the century, Steve Jobs.
All said and done, both Apple and Samsung benefiting from each other. Why this kill each other game that was probably started by Apple, may be for the right reason but will stand to lose on the long run? I salute Steve Jobs for his conviction and product vision but this legal battle going too far not benefiting the customers which Apple is focusing.
Tim Cook, the new CEO seems to be a great guy (already Apple team are appreciated with leave and other perks) and I am sure Jonathan Eve has more wonderful designs under his sleeves others want to emulate (not necessarily a copy!) and it makes Apple as leader in the Tech industry!
For good sake, Apple must be confident that its followers will not leave them because Samsung or others copying them.
Please understand that people that cant afford Apple can have Samsung as an alternative. Both can live happily in this wonderful distorted world invented by the greatest man of the century, Steve Jobs.
What Australian law makes a trademark infringement citing a competitor name in an ad?
i highly doubt there is any law in any country that forbids that if they are not denigrating the product
Seriously? I don't even care if Samsung has stores, and this misrepresenting of what I am saying is getting kind of old. I was obviously making a joke there in reference to earlier posts. Either you don't understand what I'm getting at, or you are just too used to dealing with blind Apple zealots and blind Android zealots.
What I'm trying to figure out here is exactly how close does a copy have to be before certain people will say that this goes beyond reasonable business practices, and the company that made the product deserves to be sued. At this moment, based on responses I have gotten, it's either, "ZOMG WHAT A COPY", or "it's not a copy until it's a paid for re-branding". Is there no middle ground?
Does Dyson not get to sue Hoover for this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ns-up-in-patent-battle-with-rival-Hoover.html
Argument 1: OMG how DARE they rip off such a unique and new idea! What a copy! CASE CLOSED! I'm an internet patent dispute judge, herp derp! :-D
Argument 2: Pfft, vacuums have been around forever. And they had bag less ones before. Clearly, that one says HOOVER right on the front and I can tell the difference from 500ft. There's only so many ways to make a bagless upright anyway. Besides, Hoover makes ****** products that can't compare to Dyson anyway. CASE CLOSED! I'm an internet patent dispute judge, herp derp! :-D
While I can agree, all area between those two extremes is gray, I'm still trying to figure out where some people draw the line between "going where the market is headed" and "blatantly ripping off the competition so I have more than a snowball's chance in hell of actually selling my product". At one point in time, the Android sub context was, "Weeeeelll, there's only so many ways to make a smartphone". There's a lot you can pull from this statement, but my interpretation is that it's basally a justification for the products leaning too far towards ripoff for comfort. Then, Microsoft released Mango, which wash a breath of fresh air in our rounded embossed shiny icon world. There's hardware form factor similarities, I guess, but I don't think Apple could make nearly as strong a case (maybe even no case at all) against the HTC Titan as they could against the Samsung Galaxy.
What I'm saying is that there is an area between groundless accusations and open-and-shut case. These areas are typically where you need judges. A co-worker of mine just purchased a Google Nexus phone, and honestly, from my 30 seconds with it, I don't think Apple could have made as strong a case that the Nexus is an iPhone copy as they did that the Tab was an iPad copy. And yes, different courts ruled on different aspects, but at the end of the day that's just what the lawyers were able to make stick in the country that made the ruling. When Samsung said "The Tablet Apple tried to stop", they aren't just saying in Australia anyway.
To me, two of these devices are too close for comfort in an emerging market, especially compared to the third, and especially compared to my blackberry curve work makes me tote around. This is an opinion about a gray area between blatant ripoff and completely different.
You are more than welcome to disagree, but I STILL want to know where you draw the line. Was Dyson being a corporate asshat for suing the fair market competition Hoover? Was Rolls Royce overreacting to the Geely? Hell, if it's just going to be a free for all, I think the largest company is probably going to win since they can just copy whatever they want. And yes, I'm referring to the notification panel in iPhone.
Often true. For example, was there mass coverage of the first smartphone announced with a multi-touch capacitive screen? No, because it wasn't Apple that was announcing it.
It definitely helps, and Apple is a master at getting publicity. They're also smart to name their mass consumer products in similar and simple ways ... "i" this and that ... which makes it easy for the public to remember.
Yep. And let me add this observation:
Like others, I cannot count the number of times that someone has asked, "Is that an iPhone?" in my hand when it was something else.
Unlike others, I don't think that's because they look the same. That would imply a lot more knowledge than most people have. It's simply because most people asking have only heard of "iPhone". (A few have caught the Droid ads so I sometimes get that question too.)
Now, a little over five years ago, the question was instead, "Is that a Palm Pilot?" because that name was widely used in movies and TV shows. (The general public had no idea what Windows Mobile was.)
It's no different than the way many people still look up and say, "Oh look there goes a little Piper Cub airplane", even though it hasn't been built in decades. It's just a name burned into the public consciousness.
Yes, there is a grey area and is justice the one that has to draw the line in every and each case
A friendly heads up: WP7 was essentially the same UI wise pre-mango; i.e. since launch (1 year prior to the release of Mango). As per the discussion: in my book anyone doing something out of the ordinary have a valid case for protection. To me, that means that the iOS v. Android debate is a non-debate (while both share similarities, they are largely within-paradigm, thus non-novel - further, within said paradigm both have opted for different routes).
Same goes, at large, for Apple v. Samsung (they did have one device that was somewhat laughable though in terms of physical design. still not sure if i would consider it a clear violation, but the grey was certainly dark in that instance).
As for tablets, now that is an area in which i find most claims to be essentially baseless thus far. Why? I have yet to get an answer beyond "totality" that should grant Apple exclusivity to a "rounded square with a glass front"; further, prior art is plentiful in most, if not all, areas mentioned above. Even the "post-pc" software take (Crunchpad/JooJoo). And, as mentioned in a semi-nice article on Techcrunch: the iPad essentially embodies the Platonic concept of a tablet - making it even harder to cry foul.
Thus, to answer your question albeit indirectly: The more ones does to stand out, the easier it is to call foul. For example, if someone were to copy MSFTs design principles (e.g. WP) it would be far more evident than the case of Apples springboard v. Androids app drawer. One is a novel approach to UI, the other is not. One stands out, the other does not. So, if Apple did what HTC are doing for example, adding prominent lips (for example) their case would be much stronger. A lip is something that you need to add, actively. Apples take is quite the reverse: "if you don't actively add, you are copying us". That to me is a baseless charge.
Simplicity and minimalism should never be protected. One should always be allowed to make things simple; just as one should always be allowed to add to what already is. Protection should only be given for when "doing the same" actually means doing something, rather than nothing.
Addendum:
Yes, the new Nexus certainly stands its own grounds in terms of design in ways the Tab does not. What one has to remember here however is demands on symmetry. Granted, Nexus has no buttons - but it still has a primary direction; for example, speakers and mic dictate a certain type of use - hence design is well off giving us directions how to hold our phone.
As for a tablet, especially a buttonless one (like the Tab), the case is different. Prior to the stereo speaker placement theres really nothing (other than the front camera) telling us to hold the device a certain way. And since the device is designed to be held in every (or at least two distinct ways; landscape and portrait) multi-dimensional symmetry is of greater importance (something Sony seems to have missed - essentially physically dictating one type of interaction with their device). Hence, where as the Nexus design works just fine for the phone (extremely well, i might add - its shape is stunning), it would not work as well for a tablet (because its not as intended for a particular type of use). Its really a tough nut to crack, design wise, if you step out of the full symmetry box. And, if you stay in it - well, theres not that much to do that can differentiate it from an iPad. At least not while maintaing a neutral design (neutral designs pretty much always have greater mass market appeal).
----------
QFT. Palm was the PDA-style device. At least in my region.
Last edited:
I love how these companies so dishonestly battle each other!
Samsung: We hates them applez!!!!
Apple: Grrz ovr evl Samsungz!!!
then apple buys ssd's and display panels from samsung to power their devices all year long. Its all BS.
Samsung: We hates them applez!!!!
Apple: Grrz ovr evl Samsungz!!!
then apple buys ssd's and display panels from samsung to power their devices all year long. Its all BS.
I would like to ask the apple revisionists who the guy on the left is supposed to represent (don't worry I don't expect a honest answer).
Try not attacking people if you want real answers.
What happened to when you merely corrected people instead of attempting to beat them up? Why don't you think of a nasty retort to yourself this time for the attitude. Also, in case you did not know, the word "sorry" does do what you asked of me. What more would you like? Chicken sacrifice?
There are at least 7 people on the planet that know HP changed the name of that product and changed their mind about cancelling it (because they did cancel it, kinda like they once cancelled WebOS in 2011). I guess now there are 8 of us.
FYI: "FUD" is not appropriate terminology when there is nothing to attack. Such as....the HP Slate 500. It created its own uncertainty and doubt.
Unless you're in the program menu or fill your home screen up with icons (which it is never by default on any Android phone that I can think of), then they usually look like this:
Also seen here in ICS:
Since when is it patented to access a grid of icons on a touchscreen? As far as grid of icons on a phone, they've had that as long as I can remember!
I hate arguing against Apple, I really do, but I don't care much when people make such grossly unfounded arguments lol. fine, you used an android phone and didn't like it. That doesn't mean everyone that makes android devices should be out of business, and it sure as heck doesn't mean that Apple owns the rights to the modern smartphone. Not even close. Nobody does.
Electronics have always existed in fashion (sorta like cars), over time the trends change.
How else were tablets designed before the iPad came around?
How about the Courier vapourware? iPad may be a better design (hinges are mechanical, which means failure), but I have to admit, the Courier looked really good. If MS pulled it off without letting the hinges get in the way, it could have been good.
There's all sorts of ways to design something. How are computers designed and how does Apple design computers? iMac, TAM, Power Mac G3 B&W, iPhone, these were all brand new designs. Yet computers existed before each and not only phones, but smartphones existed before the iPhone.
Keep using the excuse, "How else would you design a ________?"
The answer to that is, "However you like! Apple's ________ isn't the only way to design a _________"
1. I'd be interested to see some pictures. By the way, the iPad was thought up in 2007 and came out in 2010, I believe.
2. That's not the point. The point is, as soon as Apple proves one form factor as a successful one, the photocopiers are started up from their standby mode. This happens everytime Apple makes a successful device. Its form factor is then used endlessly.
Somebody should set up a website with hardcoded pages everyone can point to, since questions like this come up and get answered almost every week
There's a few in this post. Here are others that were shown off before the iPad came out.
The point is, that Apple was not first to invent this form factor. Moreover, as a couple of judges have noted, the form is mostly if not completely made up of functional aspects, not decorative.
What Apple did do was make that particular style popular. There's a huge difference between inventing a style and making it a fad that everyone jumps on.
Using the obligatory car analogy (ugh), for years after WWII various carmakers experimented with adding jet-like fins, but few consumers paid attention. Then Cadillac did it, and suddenly everyone had to have fins.
There are pictures earlier in this thread. The 2007 vs 2010 thing is irrelevant - do you think all the earlier tablets sprang fully-formed from Zeus's head? They took development time too, and given how little was really known of the iPad ahead of release, I'm not going to listen too closely to claims that they copied based on rumors.
Well outside of their I'm a Mac ads. When else has Apple done advertising like this recently?
Lol
That's one of the first car analogies that is actually spot on!
Congrats for the true LOL!
That's one of the first car analogies that is actually spot on!
Congrats for the true LOL!
How else is a touchscreen phone supposed to look? Do you get upset because flat panel TVs all look alike? Or refrigerators? Or ink pens?
OMG that pilot pen looks just like a bic!! NERD RAGE!!!
The Courier was never announced, hence it really can't be vaporware; it never ware (sic!). That said, i fail to see the relevance in mentioning it at all. I wouldn't even put it in the same class of devices as a tab. The Courier concept, by all means, was a full-fledged post-pc device (which in part is why Gates rejected it).
And yes, there are many ways to design everything. Theres only one way of un-designing them though. The iPad is extremely un-designed. Using your words, Apple didn't pick a way at all. They opted for the non-route. Personally, i don't find that position to be one that one should ever be granted exclusivity for. What next? Somebody patenting the clear pane, forcing everyone else to smudge it? Yeah, that seems sensible, right?
----------
Apple's expert witness: They could make non-cubical refrigerators! Why not asymmetrical too. Asymmetrical pyramid-shaped refrigerators with a lid cap. Obviously, there are many other ways to design. They don't have to take ours. Sure, or refrigerator wasn't first - but we made it work, ours sell!
----------
Correction, it happens every time SOMEONE makes a successful device. Business 101. Simple as that. Now, if we are to apply MR-reasoning: Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell desktop (paradigm) computers (incl. iOS). Sure, Apple had done GUI work, but they weren't successful. It was Microsoft (Win95) who "got it right", and pushed the shift in paradigm. Clearly then, no one other than MSFT (who made the "(digital) form factor" successful) should be able to do what they did; no one should be allowed to copy their success - right?
In essence, that is how people around here are reasoning.
Thanks! I did not know there were other tablets designed like this before the iPad. (NOT being sarcastic).
Which is why I said, "The point is, as soon as Apple proves one form factor as a successful one"
. I knew I didn't know my history. That's why I knew I could be wrong and allowed for that mistake. I would like to know, did those other tablets use their own OS? Or were they using Windows? Because if so, then the iPad is still the first to use the grid of icons and the whole designed for multitouch OS.
I still think Samsung is basically ripping Apple off. I don't think the other tablet makers should be forced to change their design, but there's no denying that Samsung isn't just following a popular form factor, they're blatantly ripping off.