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
The software UI isn't totally different. It's about as different as Samsung TouchWiz and iPhone are. Which is to say, there's a lot of striking similarities Prada was the first with the four icon dock on the bottom of the home screen for example, but of course Apple had their dock before that, and before that most GUIs EXCEPT Apple had some way to tie most commonly used applications to a bar at the bottom. These things are all natural evolutions of one another, and everyone copies everyone. The difference is Apple files lawsuits. I'd be totally fine with that if it wasn't so hypocritical - Apple copies tons of ideas themselves. Notification center, anyone? This is good. It leads the whole industry, including Apple, forward. Lawsuits don't.
Also, capacitive screen slabs were a pretty new concept with the Prada, as was minimalist design language.
And the iPhone 4, yeah, looks a lot like a cleaned up better built Prada, down to the silver band...
actually it wasn't the first thing that popped up on google. It not sure why it matters. Especially when if any iPhone could be claimed to have copied the Prada design it's the iPhone 4. Usually when the Prada gets thrown out there and Apple is accused of copying it (it had a capacitive screen and was released before the iPhone, but we'll just ignore the crappy flash based OS that came with it) its in reference to the original iPhone. But when it's pointed out that the Prada and the original iPhone don't really look that much alike then people say oh it's really the iPhone 4 that ripped off the Prada design.
So we're really supposed to believe when Apple was working on the iPhone 4 design Steve and Jony said hey let's make it look like the LG Prada ffrom 2006? Really?
What's so hard to believe? We all know Steve ran the business, and it was his show. If he wanted it done, it would be done.
There are striking similarities. You will say, "Well it's the only logical design for smart phones" yet when modern day competitors (Android) have a similar form factor, they are "ripping" off Apple.
For it's time, Prada unveiled a damn good phone, and they should have followed suit with legal action.
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..
And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out
"UK Judge said It was not as cool as iPad, although we thought it was until then."
Ok maybe I'm blind, but I fail to see how one would mistake the iPhone and Prada OS UI. Outside of the 4 icons docked at the bottom they really look nothing alike. And the icons don't really resemble each other either.
Now I'm not arguing this to defend Apple and all their lawsuits - I do think the Galaxy Tab one was especially bogus - I just think the LG Prada copycat claim is bogus as well. One, no way could Apple redesign their phone between the time the Prada won an IF design award and the iPhone was released (which is what
LG claimed). And two, no way do I believe the iPhone 4 was intentionally ripping off the original Prada released in 2006. Unless the claim is they unintentionally ripped it off, which I find hard to believe.
Those phones are about as different as a tomato and an orange. Which is to say, they're both fruits... I would suggest an eye examination before your next license renewal.
When did I say the LG Prada was the only logical design for a smartphone? I didn't. I said I don't think people would look at an iPhone and mistake it for an LG Prada or vice versa. And what you just posted doesn't make me think any different. I don't look at the Prada OS UI and think wow, that looks just like iOS! It doesn't. The Prada was announced on December 12 2006. The iPhone was announced on January 9 2007. So between December 12 and January 9 Apple was able to redesign the iPhone to the look and feel of the Prada? Also, you've just shown the front of the phone but the backs look nothing alike.
Last edited by a moderator:
this reminds of a mom saying "apologize to your sister and it better sound like you mean it!"
Why should Apple have to have words put in their months? That's some crazy *****. If anything, all they should have to do is put the ruling from the court on their site:
"In the case Apple vs Samsung on copyright infringement, it was determined that Samsung did not infringe on the look & feel of the iPad with their competive product, the Samsung Galaxy Tab."
The UK decision is complicated. Apple is still allowed to claim that Samsung infringed
from business week:
Public Statements
Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.” He declined yesterday to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
“They are entitled to their opinion,” he said.
(However) the required notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe Apple’s registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said yesterday. It should be posted on Apple’s U.K. home page for six months and published in several newspapers
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news...sh-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says
from business week:
Public Statements
Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.” He declined yesterday to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
“They are entitled to their opinion,” he said.
(However) the required notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe Apple’s registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said yesterday. It should be posted on Apple’s U.K. home page for six months and published in several newspapers
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news...sh-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says
You know, when your margins are nearly an about five to ten times larger than the industry average, competition is going to come in and eat that away unless you keep innovating.
Similarly, while Apple defined the dominant design, and made a lot of money doing so, the competition in phones won't be in the design anymore. It will be focused more on performance and will start to become much more price sensitive.
I have products on a mix of platforms, but I'm not going to lose sleep if Samsung dominates the the smartphone market. Their hardware is amazing. HTC, LG, Sony, all putting out good phones, and I think Nokia's going to be a viable competitor soon enough.
For Apple, I worry that they are spending to much time being butthurt about the past, which isn't profitable, and milking their goodwill rather than pushing the envelope with new products and new frontiers. Where is the next iTunes? The next ipod? Ipad? iPhone? Because I don't think it's iTV or the cloud.
Similarly, while Apple defined the dominant design, and made a lot of money doing so, the competition in phones won't be in the design anymore. It will be focused more on performance and will start to become much more price sensitive.
I have products on a mix of platforms, but I'm not going to lose sleep if Samsung dominates the the smartphone market. Their hardware is amazing. HTC, LG, Sony, all putting out good phones, and I think Nokia's going to be a viable competitor soon enough.
For Apple, I worry that they are spending to much time being butthurt about the past, which isn't profitable, and milking their goodwill rather than pushing the envelope with new products and new frontiers. Where is the next iTunes? The next ipod? Ipad? iPhone? Because I don't think it's iTV or the cloud.
Just because something is a good fit, doesn't mean it wasn't innovative to use it. Many things seem obvious after the fact, like the use of Carbon Fiber in sporting equipment for instance. The fact is no one was using Corning's Gorilla Glass before Apple. No one bothered to research if there was glass with these kind of properties, they were all too happy to use plastic instead. Then when Apple introduced the Glass, showing the market you could use this material, that the Glass was capable of accommodating the needs and uses of the device, and since it's Glass, it is much more recyclable and far more pleasant to see/touch than the crappy plastic alternatives. Now the market is shifting and employing Glass in up to 20% of the market. So yes, in this case, it was innovative.
----------
Cheerios is/was a consumer product prior. Was Gorilla Glass used in any consumer product or portable electronic device? The answer is no. So by the very definition of innovation, bringing Gorilla Glass to the market was innovative. You might not think it was much of an innovation, but to dispute that it was is sheer nonsense. But keep deriding ideas you don't like.
Last edited:
Because I'm not responding to those issues, so they are irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I get to decide what I respond to, not you.
It's also against the rules to misstate and misrepresent what others are saying, over and over again.
And here you do it again.
What you corrected was a rather untoward interpretation of that statement, one that commits the speaker to a factual error/absurdity. And now you continue to perpetuate it, to what end? What is your purpose here?
Right, as I say many times, I'm talking about Gorilla Glass exclusively. You don't get to tell me what I should be talking about.
Ironic.
Which one? If it's the one where I said "yes it is", then I explained that in the post you just responding to. Did you fail to read it?
In in the way you interpret them. See this: Principle of Charity
Why do you insist on continuing to obfuscating the issue? Why is it you never address substantively the point I made? Have no counter-arguments, do you?
Others understood me well enough. If you can't decipher the meaning in those points, the intentions of those posts, then I'd begin to ask myself why if I were you. They are not highly complicated and obscure posts that require an inordinate work of the reader to understand.
Right (this is sarcastic).
Last edited:
A lesson learned for Apple, don't consider all courts as easily persuaded as the friendly courts at home. Holland, Australia, Germany (with slight modification) and now the UK have all told Apple where they can stick this stupid litigation.
The UK courts however are the first to basically punish Apple for trying to damage a competitor with a trivial claim, perhaps using the term "slavishly copying" doesn't seem like such a good idea to the Apple legal team now.
Justice served.
The UK courts however are the first to basically punish Apple for trying to damage a competitor with a trivial claim, perhaps using the term "slavishly copying" doesn't seem like such a good idea to the Apple legal team now.
Justice served.
Nice try.
----------
That's not what you were initially saying at all. You just changed your tune now that I posted the actual ruling with the actual conclusion in this thread in reply to your post, which was as follow :
Of course, never mind that's not what the judge said at all. BTW, does not infringe a design patent does equal "didn't copy" in this case. And the judge quite clearly says the Galaxy Tab did not copy :
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html
At least provide Sources and Evidence when you want to "drive something into my thick skull", and drop the ad hominems. I provided links, I provided images, I provided actual court documents. What did you provide besides insults and opinions ? You're ignoring me now because it seems you can't back up your claims and prove me wrong and that just pisses you off. Good day sir.
----------
Legal action over what exactly ? These designs have been around for so long, are based on concepts from the desktop/laptop GUIs of the 80s and 90s (docks, icons, textboxes, scrolling, etc..) and the form factor was hardly novel in 2007 or 2006.
Basically, no one can even remember where most of this stuff comes from, we keep digging up prior and older devices/designs/software implementations using these same concepts all over these threads.
It seems only Apple thinks they invented this stuff and are suing left and right over it. The rest of the industry just shrugs, countersues and tries to get patents invalidated, etc..
Meanwhile, Apple is not paying for standard essential patents in radio technology for their prime money makers (iPhone and iPad), snubbing the people who made 3G/Cellular communication possible and denying them money because they think it's "unfair" they need to pay more for patent pools they don't contribute to compared to players who have contributed.
Apple is really being a poor player in this industry. They make a great device, they just need to stop trying to take the ball home with them. Play with the other kids, compete on merit, there is nothing to fear after all, iOS is a great platform, just like Android is a great platform. Apple makes great hardware just like Motorola, Samsung, Sony et al. do.
That is what a lot of us are really upset at Apple about. Their own victim complex in all of this.
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..
And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out
"Samsung failed to copy the coolness of the iPad."
Yes, it was Corning's innovation and bravo to them. And now many players in the industry are profiting from it and consumers are able to have glass fronts on their smartphones that are more resilient.
Good job Corning. Now, anyone purchasing said innovation from Corning is not copying other customers of Corning's, just like anyone buying Cheerios from General Mills isn't copying other General Mills customers.
Friends and I were talking about this at a coffee meeting the other day regarding some Auto design, then we slipped into Music.
So I can create the same lyrics, beat, melody, and use the same instruments, but change 5 words, and add a Xylophone. Different song right?
And no... I am not saying Samsung copied anything, we were just debating prior design / copies / similar design over a nice little gathering.
Tabs are simply not as cool as iPads
iPads are way smoother, user-friendly and responsive than any other device. Original always remains original.
iPads are way smoother, user-friendly and responsive than any other device. Original always remains original.