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

[uknowimright]

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?

Image Image

Oh and BTW, the Prada had a slide out keyboard which the iPhone never has.

Image

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?

the one with the keyboard is the Prada II, but nice job going with whatever popped up right away on Google

----------

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.

it's all quite sad

 

[AllieNeko]

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?

They're not identical, but they're as similar as a Galaxy Tab and an iPad. You didn't show the homescreen of the Prada with the same 4-bottom-soft-keys like the iPhone has.

Also the black with a silver band design of the Prada was copied by Apple with the iPhone 4. Granted, Apple did it MUCH more tastefully and elegantly, but the basic design language is the same. And that's Apple's complaint about the Galaxy Tab.

Could ANY reasonable, non-blind person confuse the LG Prada and the iPhone? No way. Same with the Galaxy Tab and the iPad. But in both cases, yes there is some obvious shared design language. Welcome to art, throughout history. Apple and LG may well have came up with the same design language totally independently, same with Samsung and Apple. These are not magical new creations, they're obvious evolutions of what comes before them.

And no, the original Prada wasn't multitouch, but it was the first capacitive touchscreen and therefore the hardware probably supported it. As I said, each of these products represents the natural evolution of the industry as a whole. Apple's just hypocritical beyond belief, and the schoolyard bully of the tech industry.

But Apple makes excellent products, and they're good to their customers. So I keep buying, because they're best for me. Proving that we humans only do the morally right thing when it's easy for us :/

 

[apolloa]

They're not identical, but they're as similar as a Galaxy Tab and an iPad. You didn't show the homescreen of the Prada with the same 4-bottom-soft-keys like the iPhone has.

Also the black with a silver band design of the Prada was copied by Apple with the iPhone 4. Granted, Apple did it MUCH more tastefully and elegantly, but the basic design language is the same. And that's Apple's complaint about the Galaxy Tab.

Could ANY reasonable, non-blind person confuse the LG Prada and the iPhone? No way. Same with the Galaxy Tab and the iPad. But in both cases, yes there is some obvious shared design language. Welcome to art, throughout history. Apple and LG may well have came up with the same design language totally independently, same with Samsung and Apple. These are not magical new creations, they're obvious evolutions of what comes before them.

And no, the original Prada wasn't multitouch, but it was the first capacitive touchscreen and therefore the hardware probably supported it. As I said, each of these products represents the natural evolution of the industry as a whole. Apple's just hypocritical beyond belief, and the schoolyard bully of the tech industry.

But Apple makes excellent products, and they're good to their customers. So I keep buying, because they're best for me. Proving that we humans only do the morally right thing when it's easy for us :/

If people proclaim the Prada is nothing like the iPhone, then by default they must also at the very least proclaim the Galaxy Tab 8.7 and 7.7 are nothing like an iPad.

 

[KnightWRX]

They're not identical, but they're as similar as a Galaxy Tab and an iPad. You didn't show the homescreen of the Prada with the same 4-bottom-soft-keys like the iPhone has.

Anyway, the Prada wasn't alone. FIC announced the OpenMoko project and the Neo 1973 in November of 2006, shipped the first units to developers in February 2007 :

http://gizmodo.com/229243/openmoko-smartphone-did-they-have-a-time-machine-or-what
http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2010-October/063653.html

Notice how the Neo 1973 has a smaller screen (2.8") than the iPhone yet higher resolution (480x640), meaning it had more pixel density, in fact, it had 285 PPI, close to "retina" resolution. All before the iPhone was announced and shipped. Shocking uh ? Of course, if anyone wants to claim Apple was first with a 300 PPI+ phone, then this gem from 2007 proves them wrong :

http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=707&c=toshiba_portege_g900

But I bet Toshiba threw that one together in an afternoon after "Slavishly" copying the iPhone too, all with a 800x480 3" display of 310 PPI, 3 years ahead of the iPhone 4.

 

[kiljoy616]

I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.

Its the UK wacky laws over there.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Ok since you struggle with reading comprehension, let me spell it out for you so that you get the entire context. I initially said:



I then added:



Then someone replied saying:



Now, no one ever claimed Corning was a subsidiary of Apple, no one made that mistake, and so the only way that the comment I just quoted can make sense is if we interpret it to mean this:

Corning Gorilla Glass is not Apple's innovation

Well, my reply was:



The only sensible interpretation of what I said when embedded in its proper context is that I am disputing that the use of Gorilla Glass is not Apple's innovation. Again, no one ever thought that Apple was manufacturing Gorilla Glass. No one ever thought that Corning was a subdivision of Apple. To attribute those beliefs to me, or to what I said is a rampant display of the worst kind of interpretive charity. It's disingenuous. The only sensible way to interpret my post is to realize I am contesting that Apple wasn't the primary stimulus in bringing Gorilla Glass to the electronic device market.

And even in this post, you cut out most of the post after "Gorilla Glass is not Apple, [...]" I have quite a good reading comprehension. (Questioning that is actually an insult and against forum rules?) I also see that you neglect to mention that you indeed directly stated in a post that Gorilla Glass is Apple. I did not cut that post. I just corrected that statement as it is not. Then, if I bring up other examples that prove that most of the ideas of the iPhone weren't new, you disregard that as not being on the topic. Yea, you can bend reality quite a bit, can you? If you can explain so well, then how in the world did you come up with said statement? Well, I guess it wasn't that the comprehension is the problem, it's how you portray things. Slender does not count as argument, I'm sorry. And I'm sorry, it isn't the only sensible way because you are not clear enough. It's not that the audience has to read between the lines of the author here, it is that if you want to get your point across, you have to be to that point. And you just missed that point by far.

 

[Swordylove]

Hum,this is Apple's site right ?

And from which page did the link appear? Plus that's a PDF file, not a mention on a webpage that a regular customer would notice. I've never downloaded any PDF file from Apple website. Seems like you'd have to dig up to find that link. If that's so, then the "Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad" should be in places that have to be dug up as well.

 

[fpsBeaTt]

Good for the judge. There has to be consequences to keep things transparent and grounded.

The naivity of this statement is why the ability to down-rate comments needs to be reinstated.

----------

Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-

Um, no; tablets were manufactured before the iPad; their implementation was simply terrible. By actual logic, there should only be one maker of a certain brand/design of cars.

 

[kdarling]

And according to this judge, only from one angle : the front. And the design for the front has been seen many times prior to the iPad or even Apple's 2004 design registration, which means even Apple got inspiration elsewhere for it, meaning they cannot own that particular front design.

When the photo of Apple's old tablet design (the one they use against Samsung) showed up today, I was struck by the similar shapes between the below cases. Not a lot of imagination there, Sir Ive:

Anyway, the Prada wasn't alone. FIC announced the OpenMoko project and the Neo 1973 in November of 2006, shipped the first units to developers in February 2007 :

In addition, Samsung made an all-touch phone in 2006, before the iPhone:



The 2005 Pidion with chrome trim (see below) reminds me of the half decade later iPhone 4. (This is a design that helped cost Apple an injunction attempt in the Netherlands. The Dutch court commented that if the German judges had done better homework, they'd have found this design and tossed out Apple's case as well.)

 

[ChrisTX]

Pretty ridiculous considering without the iPad, there would be no Galaxy Tab.

 

[pacalis]

Hum,this is Apple's site right ?

Quoted from that link :

Wow, just a reminder of the history of this nonsense. This is from the front page of the Apple suit.

Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control. The iPhone was radically different. In one small and lightweight handheld device, it offered sophisticated mobile phone functions, a multi-touch screen that allows users to control the phone with their fingers, music
storage and playback, a mobile computing platform for handheld applications, and full access to the Internet.

And this is the specs of the N95 released announced a year before the first iphone...

Its capabilities include:[1][2] a Global Positioning System receiver with maps and optional turn-by-turn navigation; a 5 megapixel digital camera with Carl Zeiss optics, flash, video recording and video conferencing; wireless connectivity via HSDPA, IrDA, 802.11x and Bluetooth; a portable media player with the ability to download podcasts over the air a FM Radio tuner; Composite Video output via included cable; multi-tasking to allow several applications to run simultaneously; a web browser with support for HTML, JavaScript and Adobe Flash; messaging via SMS, MMS and e-mail; Office suite and organizer functions; and the ability to install and run third party Java ME or Symbian mobile applications.

 

[apolloa]

Wow, just a reminder of the history of this nonsense. This is from the front page of the Apple suit.



And this is the specs of the N95 released announced a year before the first iphone...

hahahaha, I didn't see that! Yeah, SMS, MMS, 3G, video calling, web, email, apps, documents, touch screens. Great designs were ALL every one invented by Apple didn't you know hahahaha...

It just shows the arrogance of Apple's lawyers, I would proclaim Apple bends over to smell it's own farts with such smugness....

And you should forget the N95 mate, PLENTY of other phones totally out featured the first iPhone well before it was released, and some still do.

I'm an iPhone fan personally, but I would NEVER state it is better then any other phone, or ever has been tech wise.

 

[chagla]

If people proclaim the Prada is nothing like the iPhone, then by default they must also at the very least proclaim the Galaxy Tab 8.7 and 7.7 are nothing like an iPad.

but there's no place for logic to iFanboys!!

same people were cheering when the judge said Samsung tablets are not so cool, but the same judge is now evil because he is demanding apple post this notice.

 

[AidenShaw]

Wow, just a reminder of the history of this nonsense. This is from the front page of the Apple suit.

And this is the specs of the N95 released announced a year before the first iphone...

Apple fans don't want to hear facts, be careful in these parts.

I laughed out loud at a couple of comments in the "AT&T Group Plan" thread that said that "no laptops have 3G".

A Dell Latitude that was delivered to me in May 2005 had builtin EVDO from Verizon.

More than seven years later, "no Apple laptop has builtin 3G".

 

[jcpb]

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!

You are not making any sense.

 

[Mal]

False, the judge said that Samsung didn't copy the iPad design

No, he didn't. He said they didn't violate the design patent that Apple was basing it's case on. That's a far cry from "didn't copy". The judge wasn't even trying to rule on whether Samsung copied Apple overall. He ruled only on the merits of the specific patent. That's what I've been trying to drill into KnightWRX's thick skull.

"Does not infringe" does not equal "didn't copy".

jW

----------

Thank you!! That's why the down-vote button came in so handy when we had it. Sometimes it's best to just ignore certain people altogether. Why even HONOR them with a reply, when all they're going to do is fireback with something rude or condescending. I don't mind someone correcting me but the delivery of it certainly makes a world of a difference.

Very true. My ignore list is getting quite filled up by now!

jW

 

[Rogifan]

They're not identical, but they're as similar as a Galaxy Tab and an iPad. You didn't show the homescreen of the Prada with the same 4-bottom-soft-keys like the iPhone has.

Also the black with a silver band design of the Prada was copied by Apple with the iPhone 4. Granted, Apple did it MUCH more tastefully and elegantly, but the basic design language is the same. And that's Apple's complaint about the Galaxy Tab.

Could ANY reasonable, non-blind person confuse the LG Prada and the iPhone? No way. Same with the Galaxy Tab and the iPad. But in both cases, yes there is some obvious shared design language. Welcome to art, throughout history. Apple and LG may well have came up with the same design language totally independently, same with Samsung and Apple. These are not magical new creations, they're obvious evolutions of what comes before them.

And no, the original Prada wasn't multitouch, but it was the first capacitive touchscreen and therefore the hardware probably supported it. As I said, each of these products represents the natural evolution of the industry as a whole. Apple's just hypocritical beyond belief, and the schoolyard bully of the tech industry.

But Apple makes excellent products, and they're good to their customers. So I keep buying, because they're best for me. Proving that we humans only do the morally right thing when it's easy for us :/

Just to be clear I actually think this Galaxy Tab lawsuit was ridiculous. Invan easily tell ghe difference because the Tab is 16:9. But I also think forcing Apple to esentially give Samsung free marketing on their website is ridiculous too.

With respect to the Prada (which many people throw out there when these copycat stories pop up) I just don't see any similarities to the original iPhone. iPhone 4 maybe but I still don't think you'd mistake one for the other. Especially when the software UI is totally different.

 

[alexgowers]

It's all balls.

Apple created a massive market with a new device. No one was making tablets that had 10 hr battery, super thin with an ecosystem of media and applications. tablets were just touch screen windows machines only! (ok bit of a generalisation)

Samsung like everyone else just copied the formula after they realised there was a market.

Apple will continue to make products that redefine markets while the rest copy and play catchup.

The design is not really the main point here it's more that samsung lacks the vision to make anything good themselves.

I try never to invest in anyone company or otherwise who doesn't have their own vision.

 

[Kwill]

Image

Unless I'm missing something, I can't see a difference.

 

[AidenShaw]

Very true. My ignore list is getting quite filled up by now!

jW

And my ignore list is empty - because I want to participate in the full conversations here.

To each his own....

 

[2IS]

Well deserved.

 

[ConceptVBS]

Hahahahahahaha

BURRNNNNNN.

There is a unofficial rule amongst marketers that you should not really reference your competition by name in your marketing materials.

LOL!

 

[jcpb]

It's all balls.

Apple created a massive market with a new device. No one was making tablets that had 10 hr battery, super thin with an ecosystem of media and applications. tablets were just touch screen windows machines only! (ok bit of a generalisation)

Samsung like everyone else just copied the formula after they realised there was a market.

Apple will continue to make products that redefine markets while the rest copy and play catchup.

The design is not really the main point here it's more that samsung lacks the vision to make anything good themselves.

I try never to invest in anyone company or otherwise who doesn't have their own vision.

How tasty is the Kool-Aid, kid?

If you hold any Apple stock, you are doing a disservice to your money.

 

[sgtjiggy]

This is so ridiculous. The judge is obviously an android and pc fan.. Sobeit. The android fans are all riled up about this ruling, like it's the end of Apple and iOS. It's crazy. I have an SGT 10.1. Great tablet but it's no iPad. Not even close. Mac is so far ahead of android and pc it's not even a competition IMHO.

 

[faroZ06]

Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image

That's what I always say, but someone brings up a picture of Picard holding his PAD. They seem to keep forgetting that Star Trek: The Next Generation is near the end of the 3rd millennium.

----------

I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.

Yeah, I don't understand the reasoning behind that. Maybe because Steve Jobs said that Android was a copy of iOS? But this is about hardware, not software.