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

[Iconoclysm]

You just put the final nail in your argument.

How so?

Because Apple thrives on tech that has been around for awhile but wasn't "cheap enough" or "reliable enough" to be used for a consumer device.

So I guess by your standard, Apple isn't innovative?

If my argument was that any Apple product is inherently innovative because it uses the latest technology then I'd have put the final nail in my argument. However, that wasn't the case.

Apple actually waits even longer before putting new technology in their devices most of the time, unless they came up with the technology in house. This sometimes gives the appearance that Apple doesn't know about new technology when the reality is they don't think it's ready - they are concerned about quality experience.

Where Apple is innovative is, again, the big picture. Nothing in iPhone 4S is innovative to me. Nothing in iPad 3. Those two current devices are more like Samsung's iterations, nothing to get too excited over. I'll let you know the next time I'm really excited about an Apple innovation and you can then compare it to how I feel about Samsung - whom have never done anything that has even slightly impressed me.

 

[JohnDoe98]

That statement alone is plainly false.

Exactly. But the sentence wasn't uttered alone, see the one that immediately succeeds it. Do you not have more substantive to contribute to the thread?

 

[w00master]

How can you not say Samsung has copied when the proof is right in your face? Whether this is illegal or wrong has nothing to do with that fact, and it shouldn't be taken as if I'm discounting the usability of Samsung's hardware...

Eventually, a company like Apple would not try to innovate, it would also just copy, and then the advancements would slow down. There would have been no iPhone to begin with, we'd still have plastic screens on our side loading WinCE based smartphones with crappy browsers and styli while Samsung would continue ripping off the Motorola RAZR.

Korean companies are known for this kind of behavior, I never thought I'd see a time when they'd be defended for it...it kind of makes me throw up in my mouth...that's why I care.

Because, I find that the generation of tablets previous to the iPad to look similar to the iPad. Perhaps you don't, but I'm not going to get into a "back and forth" with you on this. We'll never get anywhere.

In terms of who innovates? Saying that Samsung has never innovated leaves me skeptical of your arguments at best. There's a reason why many companies use Samsung technology in their products - just like Apple.

Again, not going to go back and forth on "who copies who." Because, I could care less. My point is: I am a consumer. I don't care who copies who. I don't care who innovates and who doesn't. I only want:

The best product for me.

I have no loyalty to a single company - and honestly? Most people don't either. The fact that folks like you blindly support Apple because of "legal wranglings" and "marketing speak" seems bizarre to me.

Again... if Samsung came out a product that *you* thought was better than Apple's (even IF they copied) and *fit YOUR LIFE better than the Apple Product*, you'd still buy the Apple product? Really?

I find that sad.

w00master

 

[dgree03]

How many different ways are there to make a 10in tablet? To me, they will always look similar! Heck the first gen iPad looks identical to some previous tablets from toshiba, dell, hp.

I think of it like this, you can design a car that has 5 wheels and square shaped but that is not practical.

Designing a octogon tablet made out of lead may make it different from the iPad, but it is not practical.

Just like the car space, or even the desktop and laptop space, there need to be generally accepted designs. Then manu's can differentiate with features and minor tweaks to materials and location of buttons.

 

[gkpm]

So you're saying they have to build every idea ever into the OS for the first release to design for a variety of devices? Did iOS have Apple TV support at 1.0?

You're coming late into the original argument which was "Android was always designed to work on multiple devices. [and form factors]"

 

[aerok]

Exactly. But the sentence wasn't uttered alone, see the one that immediately succeeds it. Do you not have more substantive to contribute to the thread?

My reply to you was on that quote. That quote can stand alone. You made a direct statement that was completly off. Good day

 

[esp211]

I don't consider myself one but if enjoying a brand and buying its product makes me a fanboy then so be it.

I don't really understand why anyone is defending Samsung for copying Apple's products. It is so blatant that Samsung's products have a striking resemblance to Apple's. Again I don't necessarily agree with Apple for taking everyone to court but still, do you guys really not see the similarities between Apple and Samsung's electronics?

 

[dgree03]

If my argument was that any Apple product is inherently innovative because it uses the latest technology then I'd have put the final nail in my argument. However, that wasn't the case.

Apple actually waits even longer before putting new technology in their devices most of the time, unless they came up with the technology in house. This sometimes gives the appearance that Apple doesn't know about new technology when the reality is they don't think it's ready - they are concerned about quality experience.

Where Apple is innovative is, again, the big picture. Nothing in iPhone 4S is innovative to me. Nothing in iPad 3. Those two current devices are more like Samsung's iterations, nothing to get too excited over. I'll let you know the next time I'm really excited about an Apple innovation and you can then compare it to how I feel about Samsung - whom have never done anything that has even slightly impressed me.

LOL, only apple can put out stale cell phone and tablet parts and have that be considered a good thing!

 

[MH01]

****** ridiculous. Just cuz that judge doesn't think it was copied does not mean that Samsung actually didn't copy. It's his opinion and his opinion dose not need to be published in an ad from Apple.

Let's assume that me might know something about the law.... In contrast to opinions given by fanboys .... And it's a ruling, not an opinion that he just advised Apple might want to consider ...

What an awesome world we would live in if judges just gave thier opinions about weather criminals went to prison lol wish I told that cop last week that it was his opinion that I was speeding....

 

[Iconoclysm]

This is great, Apple's design was a revolutionary design yes. But all laptops pretty much looked the same before, all the tablets all pretty much looked the same before. All the smart phones pretty much looked the same before.

Now present day what has changed. nothing.. all the tablets look the same, all the laptops look the same all the smart phones look the same.

Seriously did apple think they could make a design and not have people try to emulate it. This has been happening in the car industry since the time they first came out. Times change as companies make new designs and others try to improve on them. Apple doesn't have the right to copyright everything they think they invented when its just changing another design before it.

This is my view as well. Apple cannot expect people to not copy their designs, eventually everything will look like their design no matter what they do. But packaging and icons? Samsung wasn't even taking Apple's ideas and rebranding them, they were taking Apple's ideas and keeping the same branding!

 

[aerok]

I don't consider myself one but if enjoying a brand and buying its product makes me a fanboy then so be it.

I don't really understand why anyone is defending Samsung for copying Apple's products. It is so blatant that Samsung's products have a striking resemblance to Apple's. Again I don't necessarily agree with Apple for taking everyone to court but still, do you guys really not see the similarities between Apple and Samsung's electronics?

We apparently wear different glasses because many of us does not see it as a blatant copy like you do.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Where Apple is innovative is, again, the big picture. Nothing in iPhone 4S is innovative to me. Nothing in iPad 3. Those two current devices are more like Samsung's iterations, nothing to get too excited over. I'll let you know the next time I'm really excited about an Apple innovation and you can then compare it to how I feel about Samsung - whom have never done anything that has even slightly impressed me.

Retina screens are worth getting excited for in laptops.

 

[w00master]

continued.... Samsung the Korean copycats

Image
Image#
Image
Image

vs.

Guess IBM should sue Apple for copying too!


w00master

 

[Mad-B-One]

You understand context right? Read the two or three prior posts that I made and what they say. Once you've done that and contextualized the sentence you just quoted, get back to me. You can't just jump in the middle of a discussion and start chomping on the individual utterances. We are not writing published articles and our editing is extremely limited. Can we get back to the substance now?

Yes, I do understand the context. As others pointed out, Gorilla Glass and other features were this way before Apple came about. I still remember my father's Palms he used - I remember the prototype if the T-Mobil MDA, a touch-enabled full-screen no-keyboard device (with a very simple design) around 2003. Sure - touch technology back then didn't use glass - but that was ages before the iPhone. I'm sure you also find enough phones using aluminum as case material. Just the combination of those does not make it the invention of the details. Claiming that- and you did as I pointed out - is inappropriate in my eyes. You even claimed it verbatim. Same with the tablets: Others pointed out that there were quite a list of designs as simple as the iPad hardware-wise. I understand that the iOS was the real game changer and it is largely copied by Android. But that was not the claim here. It was mainly about hardware in the court case.

 

[unlinked]

It does if you substitute "the iPhone" for "electronic devices".

I haven't read up on it much though, just going from the Steve Jobs biography which has a number of quotes from the Corning CEO which backs it up.

That helps a bit but there is also the fact it wasn't a product sitting around in a warehouse waiting to be used until Apple discovered it.

 

[tninety]

You're coming late into the original argument which was "Android was always designed to work on multiple devices. [and form factors]"

And it was - watch that 2007 video you posted before.

"[Android] is a platform that we hope will enable people to create thousands of G-phones"

Do you think Google really expected these thousands of G-phones to all look the same and have hardware keyboards?

Android's design (with apps running on the architecture-independent Dalvik VM) is fundamentally quite portable. That's what Android was always designed to work on multiple devices means.

The Input Method Framework wasn't necessary for 1.0 because there was no point then. Google has limited resources and time and it really wasn't necessary for the only available Android hardware at the time. Again, if you think every single feature could have been ready by 1.0 then you're insane.

 

[samcraig]

I think if Samsung were found guilty and was forced to put something on their website saying they copied - people here would be high-fiving each other, praising the judge and talking about how Samsung got owned. Sucks when it's reversed though, huh?

p.s.

Don't be judgmental. Don't call yourself right and others, who do different things, wrong. Same for computer and smart phone platforms. - Steve Wozniak

 

[doelcm82]

Me too. At most they could force Apple to retract marketing, but I seriously doubt they can dictate such things on a website. That could constitute advertising. IMO the most a judge could do is force Apple to make a public statement acknowledging such a thing, but they can't dictate a websites design for an extended period of time - especially when they never made such statements online in the first place.

ETA: Even more so given that this is not a libel case at all. Anything public Apple did say is totally irrelevant since they are not being charged with libel or slander. I don't see this surviving appeal.

Sure the judge can force Apple to do this. For a while, Listerine was required to state in every advertisement that it did not prevent colds or lessen their severity, to make up for implying previously that it did.

 

[gkpm]

We apparently wear different glasses because many of us does not see it as a blatant copy like you do.

Even this same judge saw the striking similarity:

(from the judgment)

I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent.

You need to be an "informed user" to tell the difference. This is a user that is (again from the judgment) "particularly observant", with "high degree of attention", "knowledge of the design corpus" and can "conduct a direct comparison of the designs".

Good luck finding many of those.

 

[MH01]

If Steve were alive, do you think he would have just no longer offered Apple products to the UK? In my opinion, Apple has more power than most governments.

Lol.... Your confusing $$$$$ with power. Given the choice of being a dictator or having Tims job.... I'll take a dictator... You make the law apple follows the law.

 

[doelcm82]

Image

vs.

Image

Guess IBM should sue Apple for copying too!


w00master

I bet IBM could get an injunction to stop Apple from selling computers that look like that.

 

[samcraig]

This is my view as well. Apple cannot expect people to not copy their designs, eventually everything will look like their design no matter what they do. But packaging and icons? Samsung wasn't even taking Apple's ideas and rebranding them, they were taking Apple's ideas and keeping the same branding!

The icons posted previously look nothing alike.

 

[baryon]

… but can they add that the iPad is still cooler than the Samsung?

 

[tninety]

Even this same judge saw the striking similarity:

(from the judgment)



You need to be an "informed user" to tell the difference. This is a user that is (again from the judgment) "particularly observant", with "high degree of attention", "knowledge of the design corpus" and can "conduct a direct comparison of the designs".

Good luck finding many of those.

There are only so many ways you can design an LCD touch screen with a bezel.

 

[LordVic]

The Palm worked with a pen, I actually have one right here. (still love Graffiti)

you were able to use most palm devvice post Palm IIIe withou the need of a stylus. I owned several.

I also have a couple windows based hand held devices that dated years prior to the iphone that incorporated touch interfaces withou the requirement of a Stylus. neither my Cassieopaiea (sp) nor my Dell Axim needed them (but did come with them if you wanted).

Again, these predated Apples invention of both the iphone, ipod touch, and surprisingly even the original Ipod.

The point that i think many people are trying to make, which Apple fanboys seem to miss. Apple very very rarely 'invented' a lot of the technologies. They took bits and pieces and put them together into a very attractive package. Apple is the king of design. I will not argue that they do know how to make attractive industrial designs.