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

[KnightWRX]

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?

No, you obviously can't, because of copyright. Music is copyrighted. This case isn't about copyrights, as hardware designs aren't copyrighted, they're patented (in the US) and under Community Design in the EU.

So you can't even begin to make an analogy between hardware design and music since they are both VERY VERY different kinds of IP.

Seriously folks, it helps to understand the issues, the difference between all the kinds of IP and the actual IP being discussed to make analogies and understand what is going on. Read the judge's ruling, read the design registration in question ('607), see the prior art listed, look it up and then form an opinion. A lot of people saying "Samsung blatantly copied" are just taking Apple's word for it, and that is a sad state of affairs.

 

[840quadra]

iPads are way smoother, user-friendly and responsive than any other device. Original always remains original.

Tabs are actually really nice to use. I wouldn't replace my iPad with it, but I see the appeal of them, and like using those devices. With the competition, they, and the iPad can only get better going forward.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. Granted the UK is not the US..

Me too. At most they could force Apple to retract marketing, but I seriously doubt they can dictate such things on a website...

I love this.. "We're not lawyers and we're from the US and have no clue about British law..BUT..."

 

[840quadra]

No, you obviously can't, because of copyright. Music is copyrighted. This case isn't about copyrights, as hardware designs aren't copyrighted, they're patented (in the US) and under Community Design in the EU.

So you can't even begin to make an analogy between hardware design and music since they are both VERY VERY different kinds of IP.

Indeed, I brought up the differences between IP and copy write in my conversation the other day, and clarified that in the conversation. In the end, IP and Copy write have similar fundamental goals, despite them doing completely different things.

We were simply tossing out words to try and explain the IP situation to some other people. I would have to say it is a better analogy than your Cheerios comment you made a few posts back though .

 

[hogo]

Utter crap of a ruling.

 

[samcraig]

I think what's plain ridiculous is you trying to tell others that preference is a bad thing.

You realize that there's a difference between having a preference and being so passionate about a brand -whatever brand? It's about the emotional investment.

I prefer using Final Cut Pro 7 vs Adobe Premiere. It's because Final Cut Pro, for me offers everything I want/need in the UI I prefer. Both are amazing programs and I do USE both. But I'll fire up FCP first because I prefer it. It's my preference. But that doesn't mean I'll wage holy war on Adobe or it's products.

I have an iPhone 4 and a Samsung Skyrocket. I used to prefer the iPhone. Now I prefer using the Samsung because it offers a bigger screen and for me, a more enjoyable experience based on my use case. But that doesn't mean I want Apple to stick it. Nor do I want Samsung to stick it.

Here's their ad:

This is an Apple iPad... (sweeping camera view)
and this is a Samsung tablet. (opposite sweeping camera view)
(cut to image of ominous, mean, grumpy judge)
A judge ordered us to say: Samsung did not copy the iPad.
(split screen)
The iPad pioneered all this... (series of design and functions)
and Samsung followed us with... (series of those matching iPads)
(cut to iPad beauty transition)
Well... we will let you be the judge of that.
(fade to "iPad" and Apple logo)
The Apple iPad.
Often copied...
Never duplicated.

This is ignorant. If a judge rules that Apple has to "apologize" in ads or on their site - the messaging will have to be blessed by the court. I've said this a few times in this thread but apparently people don't like to read. Your scenario is fantasyland. Never going to happen as part of the ruling (if enforced).

Further - it's not in Apple's style. At a KEYNOTE - definitely.

 

[KnightWRX]

Indeed, I brought up the differences between IP and copy write in my conversation the other day, and clarified that in the conversation. In the end, IP and Copy write have similar fundamental goals, despite them doing completely different things.

Copyright, not copywrite. It's not copying a written thing, it's the Right to Copy. Sorry, not trying to play grammar nazi here.

IP and Copyright are the same thing btw, they just don't have fundamental goals. Copyright is a square to IP's rectangle. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. The different kinds of IP are Trademark, Patents and Copyright (with other things like trade dress, design, etc..).

Again, not trying to play grammar nazi, it just helps to understand these things. Yes all different kind of IPs protections have the same fundamental goal, they just protect different kinds of IP.

We were simply tossing out words to try and explain the IP situation to some other people. I would have to say it is a better analogy than your Cheerios comment you made a few posts back though .

Responding to silly things like Corning's new customers are copying Corning's old customers spawns silly analogies. Not much to do to help that though.

 

[Vip]

The law in UK is pretty simple...

If you decide to bring proceedings to judicial review, then

If you win, then expect an injunction on the other party.
If you lose, expect to publicly appologise.

Don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

[JohnDoe98]

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.

Except for the small fact that Corning had it shelved and didn't think to approach the electronic device makers, it took Apple to get the ball rolling.

 

[aerok]

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).

It's the Patent Cold War, we're about to have a Cuban patent crisis.

----------

Except for the small fact that Corning had it shelved and didn't think to approach the electronic device makers, it took Apple to get the ball rolling.

Love how you just come out with ''facts''

At worst, you should blame Corning for selling it to other companies and not the companies for ''copying Apple''

 

[KnightWRX]

Except for the small fact that Corning had it shelved and didn't think to approach the electronic device makers, it took Apple to get the ball rolling.

An irrelevant fact and one you'd have to provide sources for to claim as a fact anyway. Since Apple didn't acknowledge Corning as a supplier until very recently and Gorilla Glass has been in use for quite a few years, no one in the industry knew what Glass the iPhone used.

Corning has a product to sell, they sell it. They demo it in mobile conventions, consumers want it, other manufacturers see it and buy it because it makes sense. No one is copying Apple, people are simply buying Corning's product which solves a problem : brittle glass on devices that get tossed around and dropped a lot.

You're just building up a strawman to prove some kind of copying fetish that people have around here. People just like to say "Apple got copied". Why exactly do you feel the need to come up with such silly scenarios about "Apple getting copied" ? I will never understand. I think some people just like to play victim or something.

 

[840quadra]

Copyright, not copywrite. It's not copying a written thing, it's the Right to Copy. Sorry, not trying to play grammar nazi here.

IP and Copyright are the same thing btw, they just don't have fundamental goals. Copyright is a square to IP's rectangle. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. The different kinds of IP are Trademark, Patents and Copyright (with other things like trade dress, design, etc..).

Again, not trying to play grammar nazi, it just helps to understand these things. Yes all different kind of IPs protections have the same fundamental goal, they just protect different kinds of IP.



Responding to silly things like Corning's new customers are copying Corning's old customers spawns silly analogies. Not much to do to help that though.

Thanks for the continued corrections. It didn't look correct when I posted it, but I was also on the phone with my boss . I guess I am a little out of it this AM, finishing a video edit, and just jumping into a conversation, while on an other.

Regardless, My first post you replied to was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek comment to an other forum member.

Except for the small fact that Corning had it shelved and didn't think to approach the electronic device makers, it took Apple to get the ball rolling.

This is the 2nd post in as many weeks I have seen stating this. Is there an article out in the wild on this that I can read up on?

Be curious their reasons, and the back story on that.

 

[aerok]

This is the 2nd post in as many weeks I have seen stating this. Is there an article out in the wild on this that I can read up on?

Be curious their reasons, and the back story on that.

As of now, it is only an assumption.

 

[tbrinkma]

Um,

"The first mass-production device from a major manufacturer to incorporate PDMI is the Dell Streak, a 5" tablet device running the Android operating system version 1.6 through 2.2."

"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (August 2011)"

I thought Apple came out with their connector type long before that...Just curious.

From early in that same wikipedia article...

PDMI (Portable Digital Media Interface) is an interconnection standard for portable media players. It has been developed by CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) as ANSI/CEA-2017-A standard Common Interconnection for Portable Media Players in February 2010. Chaired by David McLauchlan from Microsoft, the standard was developed with the input or support of over fifty consumer electronics companies worldwide. [1] It is designed as an alternative to the iPod interface which was used exclusively by Apple Inc.[2]

 

[JohnDoe98]

Love how you just come out with ''facts''

At worst, you should blame Corning for selling it to other companies and not the companies for ''copying Apple''

Right, go read Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs, in it you will learn that Isaacson interviewed Corning's CEO and knows about the project much better than either of us.

This is a small except on the Gorilla Glass section (my emphasis):

Jobs described the type of glass Apple wanted for the iPhone, and Weeks told him that Corning had developed a chemical exchange process in the 19060s that led to what they dubbed "gorilla glass." It was incredibly strong, but it has never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it was good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about the topic. "Can you shut up," Weeks interjected, "and let me teach you some science?" Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved an ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turning Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. "We don't have that capacity," Weeks replied. "None of our plants make the glass now."

"Don't be afraid," Jobs replied. This stunned Weeks, who was good-humored and confident but not used to Jobs' reality distortion field. [...] As Weeks retold this story, he shook his head in astonishment. "We did it in under six months", he said. "We produced a glass that had never been made."

----------

This is the 2nd post in as many weeks I have seen stating this. Is there an article out in the wild on this that I can read up on?

Be curious their reasons, and the back story on that.

Yes it's in the Walter Isaacson book. He interviewed Weeks. In my previous post (which this is attached to) I quote the relevant passage in part.

 

[KnightWRX]

Right, go read Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs, in it you will learn that Isaacson interviewed Corning's CEO and knows about the project much better than either of us.

This is a small except on the Gorilla Glass section (my emphasis):



----------



Yes it's in the Walter Isaacson book. He interviewed Weeks. In my previous post (which this is attached to) I quote the relevant passage in part.

So your source is Steve Jobs through Isaacson ? Care to provide a more factual source that just heresay.

Walter's book isn't exactly a source of unbiased verified facts like a Press Release from Corning would be.

And how does Apple asking Corning to make something they made before, except smaller result in everyone else buying from Corning "copying" Apple when even Apple and Corning were not publicizing their relationship ?

"Makes no sense" comes to mind.

 

[JohnDoe98]

An irrelevant fact and one you'd have to provide sources for to claim as a fact anyway. Since Apple didn't acknowledge Corning as a supplier until very recently and Gorilla Glass has been in use for quite a few years, no one in the industry knew what Glass the iPhone used.

Yeah it's some sort of coincidence, and a mystery that boggles the mind that they all ended up with Corning... Also, the source is Weeks, CEO of Corning.

Corning has a product to sell, they sell it.

Not according to Weeks, according to him the stuff wasn't in production.

They demo it in mobile conventions, consumers want it, other manufacturers see it and buy it because it makes sense. No one is copying Apple, people are simply buying Corning's product which solves a problem : brittle glass on devices that get tossed around and dropped a lot.

Only now, after the fact.

You're just building up a strawman to prove some kind of copying fetish that people have around here. People just like to say "Apple got copied". Why exactly do you feel the need to come up with such silly scenarios about "Apple getting copied" ? I will never understand. I think some people just like to play victim or something.

No, I'm basing my beliefs in proportion with the evidence. You rather conjecture up some story rather than trust the word of an acclaimed author who identifies his source as Corning's CEO.

 

[aerok]

Right, go read Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs, in it you will learn that Isaacson interviewed Corning's CEO and knows about the project much better than either of us.

This is a small except on the Gorilla Glass section (my emphasis):



----------



Yes it's in the Walter Isaacson book. He interviewed Weeks. In my previous post (which this is attached to) I quote the relevant passage in part.

The exerpt only says that Corning had to get the balls rolling with Apple, not the other way around. They seem have to been the ones who approached Steve to convince him.

At the end, it's still ridiculous to say others are copying Apple for using the glass... If that's the case, there is not one single manufacters that is not blatently copying one company, everything has to begin somewhere.

 

[JohnDoe98]

So your source is Steve Jobs through Isaacson ? Care to provide a more factual source that just heresay.

Walter's book isn't exactly a source of unbiased verified facts like a Press Release from Corning would be.

Isaacson says his source is Weeks, since he says "as retold by Weeks". If it was false, Corning or Weeks could easily make a note of that. Notice, they never refuted it. So all evidence suggests this is not a biased account but is actually factual and that Isaacson's interview is well represented in the book. But hey, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like.

----------

The exerpt only says that Corning had to get the balls rolling with Apple, not the other way around. They seem have to been the ones who approached Steve to convince him.

No, go read it. FFS. Jobs was complaining about the plastic glass and it is only at that point that his friend on the board of Corning told him he should get in contact with Weeks. It wasn't Brown who came up with the idea out of the blue.

 

[aerok]

No, go read it. FFS. Jobs was complaining about the plastic glass and it is only at that point that his friend on the board of Corning told him he should get in contact with Weeks. It wasn't Brown who came up with the idea out of the blue.

Either way, it's just plain ridiculous how you use this argument for whatever. I might as well say Apple blatently copied Sharp for adding camera on the iPhone.

 

[KnightWRX]

Isaacson says his source is Weeks, since he says "as retold by Weeks. If it was false, Corning or Weeks could easily make a note of that. Notice, they never refuted it. So all evidence suggests this is not a biased account but is actually factual and that Isaacson's interview is well represented in the book. But hey, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like.

----------



No, go read it. FFS. Jobs was complaining about the plastic glass and it is only at that point that his friend on the board of Corning told him he should get in contact with Weeks. It wasn't Brown who came up with the idea out of the blue.

Look, you still fail to tell us how exactly it is copying Apple. Corning now has a product, and no matter who you believe "revived" the project (the book excerpt you posted doesn't seem to quite be Weeks that is testifying, seems to me it's being told from Steve's vantage point, which is biased, the guy though he owned Multi-touch, all of it, FFS), Corning now has the product for sale, pimps it at conventions and doesn't say they are Apple partners.

How exactly are people buying Corning's product copying Apple ? They are solving their "plastic scratches, glass breaks" problem same as Apple, Corning happens to sell the solution.

The only copying is in your mind. By your logic, Apple is copying Samsung Mobile with their AX ARM SoCs that are SoCs just like the EXYNOS and are also bought from Samsung Electronics. Gee whiz, they're buying the SoCs from the same people! Must be copying .

 

[JohnDoe98]

Either way, it's just plain ridiculous how you use this argument for whatever. I might as well say Apple blatently copied Sharp for adding camera on the iPhone.

I already explained to you earlier in the thread why this sort of analogy doesn't work. It seems the point was beyond you. If you are not actually going to respond to reasons, I'll not make you swallow them involuntarily.

 

[Oletros]

I already explained to you earlier in the thread why this sort of analogy doesn't work. It seems the point was beyond you. If you are not actually going to respond to reasons, I'll not make you swallow them involuntarily.

The analogy doesn't work for you, because you don't want it to work and tou want to still say that Apple was copied.

 

[aerok]

By sharp contrast, no consumer product used Corning Glass until Apple introduced it to the market, meaning everyone copied Apple in that specific regard.

You mean this?

No consumer mobile cellular device used a camera until Sharp and Kyocera introduced the idea to the market, meaning everyone copied Sharp and Kyocera in that specific regard.

Oh let me guess, that does not work either?

 

[KnightWRX]

I already explained to you earlier in the thread why this sort of analogy doesn't work. It seems the point was beyond you. If you are not actually going to respond to reasons, I'll not make you swallow them involuntarily.

The analogies we come up with don't work because your very premise doesn't work : Buying a product from Cornings is not copying Apple, especially since no one knew Cornings and Apple were partners to begin with.

That's the whole point you're still evading now, 25 pages later. You're so stuck up on claiming copying, you just don't want to respond to this simple "reason" as you put it.