Once again, dont post without research. Google did NOT change the design of Android to look like iOS after it was announced, the stock Android look has been around since at least 2006, when it was pre-release. Go back a page and read up!
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's Appeal of Australian Galaxy Tab Ban Fast-Tracked as Apple Targets Resellers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again, dont post without research. Google did NOT change the design of Android to look like iOS after it was announced, the stock Android look has been around since at least 2006, when it was pre-release. Go back a page and read up!
Most definitely, yes. Also, to quote Bill himself:
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
Truth of the day.
For those still adamant that Android has 'ripped' iOS, please provide a LIST of every single thing Android has ripped.
Bearing in mind, this is what android 'stock' roughly looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nexus_S.png
Place your proof in a nice list, and feel free to add links to comparison images.
Also, remember that the 'button look/feel/interface' was in Android before iOS released, despite what a few uneducated people may think.
Bearing in mind, this is what android 'stock' roughly looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nexus_S.png
Place your proof in a nice list, and feel free to add links to comparison images.
Also, remember that the 'button look/feel/interface' was in Android before iOS released, despite what a few uneducated people may think.
Um, apparently you've never heard of a little Apple device called the Newton?
Hmm, maybe Hyundai should just clone the exterior design of the Porsche Carrera and sell it for $20k? I mean, you can't really protect something as abstract as a design, right?
No one is saying Samsung can't create a device that has a "sleek design." What Apple (and apparently the courts, thus far) is saying is Samsung should create their own "sleek design" and not just copy that of others.
It's the Asian manufacturers' complete industrial design ineptitude you Android fans should be upset about. Not the fact that Apple is seeking legal protection for its own work.
But hey, whatever. Some people are content with lame knockoffs and stolen American IP given away for free to Asian companies in the name of advertising dollars. What are you gonna do.
Lord Judge, i present - Exhibit A, the Simon. Shown 1992, launched 1993 (picture is wrong).
I guess they too had a time machine. Everyone seems to nowadays. At least when Apple is involved.
p.s. this is getting boring.
Thats actually Samsung's modified Ice Cream Sandwich build, but the point made by both of us still remains - it looks nothing like iOS at all
Thats actually Samsung's modified Ice Cream Sandwich build, but the point made by both of us still remains - it looks nothing like iOS at all
No, that's the stock version of Android 4.0....
Its not far off, but this is stock 4.0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galaxy_Nexus.png
Its also the same on the official SDK build. I believe Samsung's has some minor UI tweaks to Launcher.
Still waiting for what IP was stolen. Hell, I'll even accept features instead of the legal definition of IP. Anything.
If you want to say that Samsung also made a rectangle with some computery bits inside, note that the iPad was not the first tablet designed with a slim form factor and a single button by a long shot.
Again, read the legal documents pertaining to the case. No one has to restate all of Apple's legal arguments on this forum to the Fandroids' satisfaction.
Perhaps you guys should contact Samsung and offer them some legal advice? You seem to have all the answers.
Legal documents in this case shows a sentence where is proved that Samsung infringes Apple's IP?
Can you link to it?
Um, yeah, the Apple Newton MessagePad launched in 1993, development started in 1987. I suppose Apple copied the Simon? (Whatever that was.)
I can see that dealing with factual information is tedious to you.
Round and around we go. Apple copied Palm, who copied Apple (Newton), who copied Simon (LOL!), who copied Microsoft (Windows), who copied Apple (Mac), who copied Xerox (PARC) - ignoring as always the fact Apple actually provided Xerox financial compensation for the use and further development of its ideas. (The Apple haters never like to recognize that historical fact - it wrecks their narrative.)
This is where it typically ends up. I'll save you the trouble.
I'm not here to do your legal research or help you prove a negative. There is an actual court case with actual legal arguments that deal with the actual issues being discussed here. You're free to dig into the meat of the matter or await the court's decision, your choice.
I'm sure the judge will come to his senses after reading the brilliant legal insight provided in this thread. They should argue all court cases this way.
Last edited:
Um, yeah, the Apple Newton MessagePad launched in 1993, development started in 1987. I suppose Apple copied the Simon? (Whatever that was.)
Um, yeah, the Android G1 launched in 2008, development started in 2003. I suppose Google copied the iPhone? (Whatever that was.)
Ups, it works both ways
----------
Ah, you're backpedaling and there is no sentence so when you have said that Samsung has stolen Apple IP in this case is totally wrong.
I'm sure the judge will come to his senses after reading the brilliant legal insight provided in this thread. They should argue all court cases this way.
Well, brilliant legal insight applies to what are you saying?
Heh, I didn't even notice you had already posted this tired old chestnut. Big surprise.
Here's the "truth of the day": Steve's neighbor invited him over for dinner, Steve brought a nice bottle of wine, talked with the neighbor about his cool new TV and liked it so much he offered to buy it (and the neighbor accepted).
Bill Gates was ticked that he wasn't invited for dinner and was jealous of Steve's new TV, so he broke into Steve's house, and stole the TV and peed on the rug.
Those are the facts, if you care to look them up.
Actually, based on the fact that Samsung is not allowed to sell this product in Australia right now shows that I'm totally right. Until the judge decides otherwise.
Last edited:
Read again. I was the one stating the Nexus was pure 'stock' Android. The Galaxy 4.0 release is different. Google even distribute two separate SDK releases. A 'Google Android 4.0' and a 'Samsung Galaxy 4.0'.
Ah, you're admiting that you hadn't read the judge paper for the injuction and because of that you have no idea of what you're talinkg about.
please, if you are just trolling you can say it, people won't waste the time trying to argue with you when it's clear that you don't know nothing about the Australian case.
P.S. A clue, the injuction is not because is proven that Samsung has infringed nothing
This appeal is absurd. Samsung should not only be facing an injunction, but they should also have to pay damages for losses suffered by Apple. The fact remains that the galaxy tab is a cheap knock off of the iPad and the shameless copying has created massive amounts of negative public opinion against both brands based on Samsung's egregious misrepresentation of its own product.
Hmm, maybe Hyundai should just clone the exterior design of the Porsche Carrera and sell it for $20k? I mean, you can't really protect something as abstract as a design, right?
It's been done before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40167-2004Feb13.html
From the article:
"For example, Mercedes-Benz executives were shocked at last year's Frankfurt Auto Show when they saw a black Amanti roll into the driveway of the Intercontinental Hotel.
"That looks like one of ours!" said a Mercedes-Benz official
"No," said another Mercedes-Benz executive. "I'll be [expletive]! That's a Kia!"
PS: nobody got sued
On the contrary, Oletros' response to you was right about everything.
No decision has been made by the judge as to whether or not any IP was infringed.
She simply used Australian legal precedent to (just barely) uphold a preliminary injunction against Samsung based on her decisions that, while either party could prevail, Apple would probably be hurt more (by the lack of an injunction) if they later won the case.
Yes, which I stated in the part of my quote you omitted: "Until the judge decides otherwise."
If the legal claims were as silly as the Android fans here claim, would a preliminary injunction have been granted at all? Unlikely.