Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

Oletros said:
Have you read the link? Because it says NOTHING about Schmidt copying or stealing nothing.
Click to expand...

The link tells a story from Burning Man 2007, Android wasn't even on sale then.

And if you believe that Jobs didn't knew anything about Android when he INVITED Schmidt to the board is because you think Jobs and the entire Apple board are stupids. And they weren't stupids
Click to expand...

I'm sure they knew about Android, in the shape we knew it back then.

xlarge_607064683d89c69ec3d135d46fe35925.jpg


Did they think Google would be changing their strategy to more closely emulate the iPhone? Probably not.
 
Iconoclysm said:
You've now tried to reduce the argument by eliminating items one at a time when the argument is presented as a package, it's the whole of its parts. You'll never see the forest through the trees.
Click to expand...

Actually - that's exactly how you destroy an argument. You pick it apart piece by piece and discredit it so that the entire argument falls apart.

You must not have good debating skills.
 
UK Vendetta against innovative minds

This says more about to idiocy of UK judges than about anything relevant to the case..

on a serious note the Judge definitely intends to cripple/shame/humilate Apple for being better then Samsung.

Why not let Samsung post on its own website "We are not as cool as the IPad."
 
That's ridiculous. If Apple does end up doing it, I hope they spin it in their favor. Include the judge's not cool enough statement in there lol.
 
Please try to remember that Android is an OS that was designed to run on various hardware.


gkpm said:
The link tells a story from Burning Man 2007, Android wasn't even on sale then.



I'm sure they knew about Android, in the shape we knew it back then.

Image

Did they think Google would be changing their strategy to more closely emulate the iPhone? Probably not.
Click to expand...
 
JohnDoe98 said:
aerok said:
Gorilla Glass is not Apple
Click to expand...

Yes it is. No consumer product used Gorilla Glass before Apple.
Click to expand...

Yea-no, it was developed in the 1960ies. Waaaay before Apple came to light. Read Wikipedia on it if you want. The iPhone might have been the first consumer device, but it was never invented for this sole purpose. However, it serves the purpose so well that 20% of the world's handsets use it nowadays.
 
How come this judge is AMAZING when he says Samsung's device is "not cool"

But an idiot when it comes to making Apple apologize.

Proof positive how bi-polar people are on this forum
 
KnightWRX said:
You have no proof of this. And I'm sure Corning's doesn't consider it "copying" that they have more than 1 customer. Just like BestBuy doesn't mind you "copying" it's other customers when you buy things in their store. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's really not the point now is it? Even if the iPhone only used something "similar" to Gorilla Glass, the fact that everyone started using it after the iPhone should say enough, no? You don't think Corning sales reps would hint that a phone company in Cupertino used their product when showing it to potential customers? You don't think they might say something like, "Similar to the glass used on the iPhone"? Come on...

Please tell me how you think you can have a civil discussion when rolling eyes constantly in your replies? You do realize that the same posturing IRL never does any good for anyone?
 
samcraig said:
Actually - that's exactly how you destroy an argument. You pick it apart piece by piece and discredit it so that the entire argument falls apart.

You must not have good debating skills.
Click to expand...

Actually, ignoring the larger argument and chasing semantics is considered poor form in a debate.
 
samcraig said:
Actually - that's exactly how you destroy an argument. You pick it apart piece by piece and discredit it so that the entire argument falls apart.

You must not have good debating skills.
Click to expand...

But a whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, to reduce it to its parts is to attack a straw man. Sometimes you cannot attack an argument piecemeal if its intrinsically interconnected and each part is mutual-supported.
 
iEvolution said:
They are no less of a technological leader than Apple is, name one technological advancement that Apple has made aside from fabrication.

Touch screen - before Apple
Tablets - before Apple
Computers - before Apple
Smart phones - before Apple
MP3 players - before Apple

Sorry but Apple hasn't revolutionized anything and much like Samsung they've just had good marketing.

Samsung is the leader in TVs/flash memory/smart phones markets. So if you're going to base technological advancements on sales then they are just as qualified as Apple.

I hate Samsung but don't undercut them just because you don't like them, the fact is they are a successful company and a leader in the industry.
Click to expand...

The Petronas Towers, Tapei 101, Warships, Televisions... you said Samsung.
 
Mad-B-One said:
Yea-no, it was developed in the 1960ies. Waaaay before Apple came to light. Read Wikipedia on it if you want. The iPhone might have been the first consumer device, but it was never invented for this sole purpose. However, it serves the purpose so well that 20% of the world's handsets use it nowadays.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so 20% of the world handsets followed Apple's lead in this regard. You just, despite what you might realize, acknowledged the point.
 
Oletros said:
You know that there were more prototypes, like touch only prototypes, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the the touch prototype shown in 2008 that barely worked and had little functionality.. oh wait 2008 is one year after the iPhone isn't it?

I posted the video up there already, but here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIfy-xVXRPU

Google in October 2008 demoing a barely working, onscreen keyboard-less, touch prototype.
 
gkpm said:
Yes, I'm aware of the the touch prototype shown in 2008 that barely worked and had little functionality.. oh wait 2008 is one year after the iPhone isn't it?
Click to expand...

Shown in 2.007 at the same time that the picture you have posted.

Oh, wait

gkpm said:
Google in October 2008 demoing a barely working, onscreen keyboard-less, touch prototype.
Click to expand...


Curious, the G1 started to be sold on October 2.008, perhaps you have to check your sources. That the video have been uploaded in 2.008 doesn't means that it is a video from 2.008
 
Portaluk said:
At the time of writing this "apple ordered to run samsung ads" is the second most popular read story on the BBC news site.
Click to expand...

Take a poll of random UK citizens and I'll bet a majority either don't know anything about this or have heard about it but don't know any details. And based on Galaxy S III sales in the UK it sure doesn't seem that this lawsuit had a negative impact on the public's perception of Samsung or their willingness to buy their products.
 
JohnDoe98 said:
But a whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, to reduce it to its parts is to attack a straw man. Sometimes you cannot attack an argument piecemeal if its intrinsically interconnected and each part is mutual-supported.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Perhaps for some arguments (You did say sometimes).

Brick by brick is more common.

Court cases (like this) are tried in this manner. And the summation ties it all together.

Point is - the discussion points listed CAN and were dismantled one by one and the conclusion the same - that if you can dismiss each item as being copied - then you can't come to the conclusion that "everything" was copied.
 
gkpm said:
Yes, I'm aware of the the touch prototype shown in 2008 that barely worked and had little functionality.. oh wait 2008 is one year after the iPhone isn't it?

I posted the video up there already, but here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIfy-xVXRPU

Google in October 2008 demoing a barely working, onscreen keyboard-less, touch prototype.
Click to expand...

Bottomline, the iPhone is a fancy Palm when it all comes down to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back