Righhhtttttt, so the patent law requires you to stop innovating and instead spend your millions and millions going around the globe banning your competitors products from sale globally to ensure you gain a huge sales advantage. Because you are incapable of innovating?
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.
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Righhhtttttt, so the patent law requires you to stop innovating and instead spend your millions and millions going around the globe banning your competitors products from sale globally to ensure you gain a huge sales advantage. Because you are incapable of innovating?
No, we don't because that's not the case at all :
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html
----------
He's probably thinking of the provisions under Trademark law that force a trademark holder to defend it or face losing said trademark. This doesn't apply to patents though.
Although I don't agree with the fact that Apple should be putting this notice on their website, I wonder how some of the responses on the first page would be if it was Samsung that had to put a notice up saying that the iPad never copied the Galaxy Tab, and thus advertising for Apple?
Exactly. I've never noticed Apple making any mention on their website or ad that Samsung copied their iPad. Why should Apple go and do in-reverse something that they never did? Definitely bad ruling.
This is your joke right? That Apple isn't innovating. They frisking created the damn market for tablets as we know them. Do your own damn homework on what Apple has created. And YES, if you get a patent, you are required to defend it unless you don't think it's worth having in the first place.
Really. If you don't defend your patent, what exactly is it worth? So Apple should, or anyone for that matter, should create something new and innovative and just be ok with others taking the innovation and copying it? I say you're full of it if you think that is how this should play out.
Apple never attacks the competition.
The whole car argument made me think of something. Have you ever noticed that cars tend to look similar decade by decade? If you see a boxy car without any redeeming qualities, you immediately think of the late 70's - 80's. Slightly more curvy with bright neon colors? The 90's. Are all these companies copying one particular car design? Like most cars from the 50's look and feel like a 56 Chevy. Was that particular Chevy the originator of that iconic 50's look, or was it just a great example of what the industry was already steering towards?
It's the same way with the tech industry. Most manufacturers tend to follow the guidelines of whatever look is popular at the time. Right now, it's sleek minimalism, which is one of the things Apple does best. So does that mean every tablet that's sleek and minimalist that comes out after the iPad copying Apple? Even if hardwarewise it's a completely different device under the hood, with an OS that's built considerably differently than iOS, is it copying the iPad just because it looks similar?
...or is it just fashion?
16: Apple submitted that the similarities between the design and the Samsung tablets could be divided into the following seven features:
A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;
That to me just sums it up, Apple have blatantly attempted to patent a shape, you CANNOT do that. You did NOT invent a shape. Nature did. I don't know how that stands legally but it shows how pathetic and low Apple has gone to...
Still their is a big difference between defending your patent and out right going through every court globally trying to ban all your competitors products from sale!
----------
Oh yes, it has innovated a shape soooo well
No joke, Apple hasn't innovated for 2 years now in tablets. iOS is the same now, bar the notifications system it copied, as it was 3 years ago. it isn't broken sure, but it hasn't innovated either.
Camera not new, Facetime not new, other tablets are more powerful.
Of course, another way to see it is not to cherry pick Rugged tablet designs, but actual designs pre-iPad that show that the iPad is just "one of the boys" :
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was just about to post that!
IMO, the Android tablets look more like the earlier Windows tablets than the iPad.
Well, not exactly. Here's a Compaq TC1000 that came out in 2002:
The tablet came with the keyboard dock but it detached and was optional.
The iPad concept prototype shown was created sometime after this (between 2002 and 2004 really). It's possible that Apple took what already existed and improved upon it. A slightly later version of the Compaq had a Pentium M.
Except for the fact that Samsung makes almost all of the components for the iPhone, iPad, and other various iDevices.
And you want to reward companies for good behavior? Really? No company has "good behavior", they're all in it to make profit. Neither Apple nor Samsung have "good behavior."
I don't know if this is sad, funny, or both, but I just read that Apple has patented the disappearing scrollbar in iOS.
They really are going for the everything including the kitchen sink approach to the patent wars. I mean how can be patentable? How is that an innovation? It's a convenience feature! At best!
It's what is called a deterrent. That's what most patents are used as, deterrent to prevent other competitors from suing you over trivial matters. It's a MAD scenario (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Also, your patent is worth what you're willing to license it for. Sometimes, if you're not too greedy and ask for a reasonable rate, some people might just find it cheaper to just license it instead of fighting it in court.
But this isn't how it's playing out now is it ? Samsung have been found to not have infringed Apple's particular Design Registration '607 (which is not a patent btw, so why you keep harping on about patents is something I don't understand).
----------
Hum,this is Apple's site right ?
Quoted from that link :
wtf? using a type of glass that is resistant to breaking in a device that is dropped is considered an innovation?
/facepalm
Any company of that size knows better than to talk such claims up. They did it anyway. My guess is that it enhanced their marketing to mindless zombies
. The rest can make their decisions on what to buy out of a pool of available products without such nonsense.You're editorializing the matter. They're doing a retraction on a matter that they spun into marketing prior to a verdict in the case. It has nothing to do with whether people visiting the site care. It's a retraction either way.
Patents are supposed to be extremely specific. They shouldn't rely on broad definitions pushed to even broader interpretations. This just hurts smaller developers who can't afford to wage these massive battles to defend themselves. Beyond that people need to get over the Apple vs. Samsung thing and the idea that nothing down to Android's source code came from anywhere else while giving Apple a free pass for copying Cydia
.While it's true that the ipad is the first and only tablet to achieve success on that scale, some earlier ones were marketed to niche fields. Have you ever signed for a package? My problem here is that you posted a debunked image, and 128 equally uniformed people agreed with you. The author of that gif just cherry picked the most unattractive designs to make his case. Many of them greatly preceded the time when a device like the ipad could even be manufactured using something like ARM. They go back to the 1990s. If you can remember the speed of a G3 tower or one of the prior beige boxes, that was not an era for low power socs.
Were they multinational corporations making marketing/PR statements
?
And anyone else buying said glass from said distributor is a blatant rip off. Just like you rip off your neighbor when you buy the same brand of cereal from the same grocery store they do. Cheerios was their innovation, not yours to steal!
So we're supposed to believe Apple completely changed their design 6 months (or less) prior to launch after they saw the Prada? That's laughable. *Who in their right mind would confuse an iPhone for the Prada?
Oh and BTW, the Prada had a slide out keyboard which the iPhone never has.
What exactly would LG have sued for? The hardware and UI look nothing a like. Did the original Prada even have a multi-touch display?
Basically, that's how they did all their complaints. Just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Hence why they lost some of their patents, lost over 90% of their claims and got a few wins in on things like "Bounce back on incomplete scroll".
It's also why Samsung/Motorola used some FRAND patents Apple were still not paying for. Just to "stick some claims" in there, thicken the complaint, to try and force a settlement. Make the whole thing more expensive to fight than to settle.
That's how big business does business these days. Force settlements not through negotiations but through outrageous legal fees.
This is just another reason why if Apple enters the TV market it will be the worst thing to happen to that industry. I mean how long would it be before Apple attempted to patent the shape and design of a television?