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

[Glideslope]

Typical UK Judge. What a Fruitcake.

Apple can place, "Samsung did not copy our iPad as it is not as cool".

The UK is finished.

 

[MH01]

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

Ahhh Woz! What a legend, I wait for the day he does what shatner did and tells the apple fanboys to get a life !!!

 

[Iconoclysm]

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

I don't disagree with you really. Or if I do, only slightly. As far as innovation goes, Samsung is a manufacturer - most of their stuff is designed in labs by companies in Japan and the USA...then Samsung figures out how to build it cheaply and efficiently.

The fact that you think I blindly support Apple says you aren't really paying close attention to my point of view.

As for your final statement, I would consider the Samsung. But I'd also consider my past experience with Samsung purchases. And the same goes for Apple, I consider my past experience with Apple purchases. Or any manufacturer for that matter. I'm also a bad example to use here as I own a ton of devices. But another big factor in today's online world is ecosystem. If all of my music is in iTunes Match, I'm going to lean towards Apple. My Zune subscription will push me to a Windows Phone (where I'd choose a Nokia over a Samsung) or WinRT tablet (where I'd choose Microsoft Surface over a Samsung). Also, I have three Kindles thanks to Amazon getting me caught up in their ecosystem. Samsung is missing something that even great hardware will not make up for.

----------

Rarely ever does a single company flat out copy another's design without improving or tweaking it in some shape, form, or fashion. They have to do something to differentiate themselves from the competition, make their product more appealing, specially when they're going against a well entrenched, popular product. These improvements usually bring about some other innovation, which the originator might decide to incorporate into their original designs while adding a little something something somewhere else. And so on and so on.

...it's the circle of life, man! But with phones!

lol, I know what you're saying but that's not how it's working out over in Korea.

 

[MH01]

Typical UK Judge. What a Fruitcake.

Apple can place, "Samsung did not copy our iPad as it is not as cool".

The UK is finished.

A fruitcake is someone who cannot tell the galaxy apart from an iPad ... Can you??

 

[jmgregory1]

Thanks for all those images. Just proves how deluded people are if they think Samsung copied Apple with those icons (for example). Just because there are similarities for COMMON objects doesn't mean they were copied. The messaging icon looks nothing like Apples. In fact none of them look like copies.

Also - the i9000, while sharing some common elements could never be confused for an iPhone unless you were an idiot.

Really? I'm just not sure how you can be looking at the same things to make comments like this. It may be true that Samsung's icons are less well designed, but they are certainly direct copies of what Apple created. The messaging icons are both callouts - is that not apparent? The notes icons just both happen to look like pads of lined yellow paper, contacts are both a bound book form with bust on them, settings are geared wheels, photos are both yellow flowers (or zoomed in petals of a yellow flower).

And the phone itself - what don't you see that is a complete copy of the iPhone?

I suppose you're one to argue the sky is actually a tree and the ocean is actually a turtle.

 

[esp211]

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

Sorry but I don't need my glasses to tell me if a large object looks similar to another large object. Obviously I'm not speaking for everyone but the majority of non-geek, normal, every day people like myself do see it as a blatant copy.

 

[Oletros]

No it didn't and you can even look at the source tree to spot it.

The source tree says that it is hardware agnostic and it can be build for a lot of different devices

Want more proof? Google designed Android 3.0 Honeycomb exclusively for tablets and never released it on phones.

Never released it because they DON'T wanted to be used on phones but Honeycomb runs perfectly on phones.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Ownage. Exhibit A.

{Watch out, the UK judge might make you post this where you work!}

Yeah, I think you've seriously missed some key parts of the discussion. Anyone pointing out green phone buttons from 1999 missed it too.

Having someone answer my question is me getting owned?

 

[gkpm]

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

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. Again, if you think every single feature could have been ready by 1.0 then you're insane.

So you're agreeing that Android wasn't initially designed for touchscreen keyboards and even more, that it's designers didn't deem it a design feature worthy of being in the first release. Great.

As for architecture-independent, Dalvik VM is just for apps. The Android system itself is very architecture dependent, Google themselves only officially ported it to x86 with Android 4.0 in late 2011.

 

[Glideslope]

I do not know if I am more amazed at how many British intellectual property lawyers there are posting on this site, or how few here can tell the difference between a functionary legal notice and an eye catching advertisement.

Very astute observation.

 

[gkpm]

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

You couldn't write anything of useful length on the Palm without a stylus (or later keyboard) or very sharp fingernail. I own several.

 

[aerok]

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.

Well I hope people get informed before spending over $500 on a tablet

 

[babyj]

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.

Apple wanted a thin and tough glass. Jobs went to Corning and they said they had a product that matched but they'd never found a use for it so it had sat on the shelf doing nothing and weren't currently producing it. Jobs told them to start making it within 6 months and he'd buy everything they could make.

Sure, it would probably have ended up being used in mobile devices eventually but it was Apple that started it and others followed.

 

[Oletros]

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.

And he said that looks similar not because Samsung has copied Apple but because both of them are similar to the same tablet corpus that has existed from long ago

 

[Iconoclysm]

Thanks for all those images. Just proves how deluded people are if they think Samsung copied Apple with those icons (for example). Just because there are similarities for COMMON objects doesn't mean they were copied. The messaging icon looks nothing like Apples. In fact none of them look like copies.

Also - the i9000, while sharing some common elements could never be confused for an iPhone unless you were an idiot.

That's after they'd already been accused of copying, it was worse before Android came along.

If you'd only seen an iPhone at a glance, you would not know the difference. Obviously, you're incapable of putting yourself in anyone else's shoes since anyone that thinks differently than you is deluded or an idiot...which must be an incredibly useful perspective to have.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Since you insist on pressing the point, I'll do you the honor of responding, one more time.

Yes, I do understand the context. As others pointed out, Gorilla Glass and other features were this way before Apple came about.

No one has pointed to any evidence that Gorilla Glass was "this way" prior to Apple. In fact, in light of Unlink's post, we know the iPhone was the first to use Gorilla Glass, since it's predecessor is not Gorilla Glass, strictly speaking. There was no Corning Gorilla Glass in any electronic device prior to Apple. That's a fact no one has refuted as of yet. And that is the only thing I was talking 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.

None of that is relevant to what I was discussing. I wasn't talking about the touch screen or the aluminium, or any other feature. Perhaps you have me mistaken with someone else.

Claiming that- and you did as I pointed out - is inappropriate in my eyes. You even claimed it verbatim.

I did not. In the post you quoted I uttered two sentences, the second was an expansion and clarification of the first, meaning the interpretation of my utterance that you chose is not a fateful rendition of what I communicated, and since the speaker is the final authority on the meaning of his utterance, to claim that I said something else is to distort my words. If that's your idea of intelligent conversation, you shouldn't expect more replies from me. Additionally, can we please get back on topic now?

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.

Irrelevant to the context of what I was discussing. Take that up with someone else.

 

[bandalay]

Seems ironic in light of the Judge's previous ruling…

http://news.techeye.net/software/uk-copyright-law-wades-in-on-photoshopping

 

[samcraig]

Typical UK Judge. What a Fruitcake.

Apple can place, "Samsung did not copy our iPad as it is not as cool".

The UK is finished.

No. Because Apple won't be able to just publish anything they want if they are to fulfill the judge's ruling. There will be a court approved statement.

Does anyone here REALLY think that Apple will be allowed to post anything that the court hasn't approved of to fulfill their "punishment" ??

 

[LordVic]

No it didn't and you can even look at the source tree to spot it.

Want more proof? Google designed Android 3.0 Honeycomb exclusively for tablets and never released it on phones.

I'd love to know how that FACT works within your argument?

Do not confuse platform with UI.

The android platform was in fact designed to be cross platform. It's hardware inedependant and where there's conflict, Android being an open source platform can be modified to work.

Android is essentially a linux variant (but highly modified).

And like linux variants, you are not tied in to a specific GUI. Linux running KDE, GNOME, Unity, XFCE or even GUIless are all still Linux, despite have drastically different user interfaces.

Android follows this same key.
Android 2.x was designed for the small screens of the phones at the time.
They felt after testing that Android 2.x was a cludgy and terrible interface for the larger screen real estate of a tablet. So they Redesigned and built a new UI exclusively for use with the larger screens.
Learning from mistakes in both UI's, and learning that it's better to have a unified approach, ICS was designed with elements for both.

They are all, however, Deep inside, Still android, despite the different UI.

 

[Iconoclysm]

The icons posted previously look nothing alike.

I didn't post those particular icons nor are they the ones I referred to. You've ignored packaging though, no comment there?

 

[Glideslope]

A fruitcake is someone who cannot tell the galaxy apart from an iPad ... Can you??

Well, I take my Fruit Cake "Cool" to the "Touch".

Just be careful if your attending the Olympics. Security is grossly inadequate.

 

[gkpm]

Well I hope people get informed before spending over $500 on a tablet

It's not merely informed, it has a specific legal definition (set by the European Court and used in EU trademark cases as well)

It means "particularly observant", with "high degree of attention", "knowledge of the design corpus" and can "conduct a direct comparison of the designs.

 

[Iconoclysm]

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

It's considered a good thing because it actually performs better with less. Only an idiot could possibly miss that.

 

[Oletros]

The Android system itself is very architecture dependent, Google themselves only officially ported it to x86 with Android 4.0 in late 2011.

So dependent that exists an x86 port since 2.009

 

[Iconoclysm]

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.

So you're now discounting Gorilla Glass itself?