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

[JohnDoe98]

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.

First off, copying is not a bad thing. As I already clearly indicated, copying is often necessary for innovation. Additionally, it's not as if Apple hasn't copied others. So unless you have some kind of vendetta, it's pretty common-sensical to admit when some copying has occurred. Now, you reasonably ask, how is this copying? Well, I think I made my case already, so I need not repeat it all over again. In sum, everyone uses plastic. Apple gets glass on the market that works great. Corning now advertises glass since it's so successful in the Apple product. Others say, ya, glass really does work. Screw plastic. To me, that is following Apple's lead and "experiment in the market". That's copying. And in this case, I'm glad they all did, since glass is far superior to plastics for many of the reasons I've already mentioned. Everyone benefits with this.

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.

You only need to ask once. I'll reply to it when I can.

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 .

I've already addressed these sorts of analogies.

----------

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.

Rather than take my words, you prefer to make ridiculous speculations about my intentions. Nice. I see you genuinely want to have a conversation with me.

 

[Oletros]

Rather than take my words, you prefer to make ridiculous speculations about my intentions. Nice. I see you genuinely want to have a conversation with me.

Yap, which conversation? The one where you repeteadly say the same wrong claim about Corning?

 

[JohnDoe98]

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?

You found the right post alright, but truncate it, which does misrepresent it slightly. But, if Sharp and Kyocera were in fact the first to introduce cameras, my answer is yes, they did copy the lead given by those two. Nothing bad, and again, in my mind everyone benefitted from it.

----------

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.

Knight. That's not why the analogies don't work. They bought a product from Corning that wasn't in production and didn't exist as is, on the market. They enticed Corning to put the glass into production and to actually get it to work in the portable device market, which Weeks claims took some quite hard work from his scientists. This is like Apple getting the screen manufacturers to update their production facilities to produce Retina screens. This isn't like someone else coming in and buying the already available product.

----------

Yap, which conversation? The one where you repeteadly say the same wrong claim about Corning?

What part of anything I said is factually incorrect?

 

[aerok]

What part of anything I said is factually incorrect?

Here is one example:

When you responded to my post saying Corning is not Apple, you said:

Yes it is. No consumer product used Gorilla Glass before Apple.

The Yes it is part is completly false.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

...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.

I'm terribly sorry! I forgot to add /end_sarcasm/ at the end of my post for the humor-challenged people here. It was very insensitive of me and next time I'll also post a funny photo of a clown with oversized shoes riding a unicycle while balancing a huge stack of cream pies.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Here is one example:

When you responded to my post saying Corning is not Apple, you said:


The Yes it is part is completly false.

I already addressed this misrepresentation of the meaning of my words. I'm not going to go over that again.

 

[samcraig]

Here's my take on the Corning argument ignoring facts completely.

If Company X uses Company Y's technology that has never been used before (just an example) or isn't really even KNOWN - and other companies follow suit - I don't see that as copying per se. Technically - yes. But at the same time *IF* it's a new tech or something that has been unearthed then how would Company Z even KNOW about it to use unless someone used it first.

Perhaps semantics.

But other companies using Corning's glass is like saying that every Jewelry maker copied the first one to use things like palladium, etc.

If a new technology is know - it's called adoption, not copying.

 

[aerok]

I already addressed this misrepresentation of the meaning of my words. I'm not going to go over that again.

This is a forum, only words will represent what you want to say, at the end, what you wrote is completely false.

 

[samcraig]

I'm terribly sorry! I forgot to add /end_sarcasm/ at the end of my post for the humor-challenged people here. It was very insensitive of me and next time I'll also post a funny photo of a clown with oversized shoes riding a unicycle while balancing a huge stack of cream pies.

Tim - It's very hard to tell amongst the several posts in this thread that aren't tongue in cheek and have said the same thing. Your snarkiness is noted though and appreciated in light that you know how ridiculous that would be.

 

[KnightWRX]

Knight. That's not why the analogies don't work. They bought a product from Corning that wasn't in production and didn't exist as is, on the market. They enticed Corning to put the glass into production and to actually get it to work in the portable device market, which Weeks claims took some quite hard work from his scientists. This is like Apple getting the screen manufacturers to update their production facilities to produce Retina screens. This isn't like someone else coming in and buying the already available product.

Except again, Apple didn't do this either. Screen manufacturers did, they've been putting out "Retina" displays for years and Apple just walked in, asked for one with 960x640 resolution in 3.5" size. Others had other specifications for their "Retina" displays. Apple hardly started any production lines for high PPI displays, they had been in phones prior.

And again, why go the "Copying Apple" route when it is a fact that :

- No one knew of Corning's and Apple's partnership
- Cornings has been pimping the product
- The product solves a problem, outside the scope of "we're different than the iPhone".

None of the fact support your very (and flawed) premise of "Using Gorilla Glass is copying Apple". That's your premise, that's what we object to. That is why the analogies don't work in your mind, because your very premise doesn't work.

That's my opinion of this whole sub-thread.

No one is copying anybody when they buy a marketed product. Gorilla Glass has been available since 2006-2007 for electronics manufacturers according to Cornings, no one is copying other Cornings customers when they also choose Cornings offerings, just like you aren't copying anyone when you also buy an iPhone or a Mac. You're just buying a product that's for sale.

 

[Plutonius]

Does this mean that Samsung also has to state in their ads that they copied from Apple in the countries that ruled against Samsung ?

 

[KnightWRX]

Does this also mean that Samsung also has to state in their ads that they copied from Apple in the countries that ruled against Samsung ?

If a court emits such a sanction in their ruling, but unfortunately, no courts have yet provided such rulings against Samsung, much less actual sanctions. The preliminary injunctions granted are not over matters that have been through discovery and trial unfortunately, and thus no final ruling of infringement is on the books.

 

[JohnDoe98]

But other companies using Corning's glass is like saying that every Jewelry maker copied the first one to use things like palladium, etc.

If a new technology is know - it's called adoption, not copying.

Well, palladium solved a specific problem with white gold and platinum, so whoever first thought to use palladium in Jewelry to solve those problems, was innovative, and others did "copy", "adopt", "follow" that lead. Again nothing bad about it. I don't know why it's such a big issue to have it revealed that pretty much everyone copies each other. In the glass scenario, we simply know who copied who. We have a better record of its genealogy.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Tim - It's very hard to tell amongst the several posts in this thread that aren't tongue in cheek and have said the same thing. Your snarkiness is noted though and appreciated in light that you know how ridiculous that would be.

Fair enough friend.

Actually, the whole clown thing may be a much better ad visual for what I posted.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, palladium solved a specific problem with white gold and platinum, so whoever first thought to use palladium in Jewelry to solve those problems, was innovative, and others did "copy", "adopt", "follow" that lead. Again nothing bad about it. I don't know why it's such a big issue to have it revealed that pretty much everyone copies each other. In the glass scenario, we simply know who copied who. We have a better record of its genealogy.

Copy is a pejorative term. Adopting new technologies is quite different from copying competitors.

And in the glass scenario, no one copied Apple even by your own definiton as Apple did not promote they were using Gorilla Glass until very recently, a fact you seem to evade in all your postings.

 

[JohnDoe98]

And again, why go the "Copying Apple" route when it is a fact that :

- No one knew of Corning's and Apple's partnership
- Cornings has been pimping the product
- The product solves a problem, outside the scope of "we're different than the iPhone".

None of the fact support your very (and flawed) premise of "Using Gorilla Glass is copying Apple". That's your premise, that's what we object to. That is why the analogies don't work in your mind, because your very premise doesn't work.

That's my opinion of this whole sub-thread.

Fair points. I'd agree, and you'd have me rescind my position, if you could actually get me to believe your first premise "no one knew of Corning's and Apple's partnership."


To me, it's pretty clear that everyone took notice that Apple released a product with glass advertised as being incredibly strong and scratch resistant. They all used plastic and must have all wondered "how the heck did Apple do it?". Next thing they know, Corning shows up on the market and trade shows advertising Gorilla Glass (notice they didn't do that prior to the iPhone launch since Apple bought up all of the supply made in the first six months). Quite clearly the natural inference for Apple's competitors is to say, "Aha! They went to Corning and got the scoop before us." "Well, yes, this glass is much better than plastic, that was a good idea, let's sell it to our consumers too".

----------

Copy is a pejorative term. Adopting new technologies is quite different from copying competitors.

I'm not aware of copying being a pejorative term. My guess is that reveals something about your attitude towards the concept, not everyone else's.

And in the glass scenario, no one copied Apple even by your own definiton as Apple did not promote they were using Gorilla Glass until very recently, a fact you seem to evade in all your postings.

No I addressed that one pretty early on too, in fact in a reply to on of your own posts.

 

[Vip]

Does this mean that Samsung also has to state in their ads that they copied from Apple in the countries that ruled against Samsung ?

No - they just get the product banned, and believe me, it hurts much more to have product banned than to have to say just sorry.

 

[Patriot24]

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

Yeah, heaven-forbid there be accountability and fairness throughout the due process of the legal system.

As a company, if you are going to bring suit against another company and make bold claims of "stealing", "copying", and "thermal nuclear war" (in some related instances) in an effort to damage the credibility and ultimately the livelihoods of individuals working at the said company, then you should be held responsible when the system finds that you were, in-fact, incorrect.

If Apple doesn't like it, then don't take the risk. That is the message the judge is attempting to deliver.

 

[KnightWRX]

Fair points. I'd agree, and you'd have me rescind my position, if you could actually get me to believe your first premise "no one knew of Corning's and Apple's partnership."

The very biography you point to as your "source" is the first time anyone ever linked Apple to Cornings :

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/03/apple-uses-corning-gorilla-glass-in-iphones.html

Quite clearly the natural inference for Apple's competitors is to say, "Aha! They went to Corning and got the scoop before us." "Well, yes, this glass is much better than plastic, that was a good idea, let's sell it to our consumers too".

Or they simple said :

"Hey look, a solution to our plastic scratching problem". I'm not aware of any competitors looking to be like Apple. My guess is that reveals something about your attitude towards the concept, not everyone else's.

I'm not aware of copying being a pejorative term. My guess is that reveals something about your attitude towards the concept, not everyone else's.

You must be new here. "Copying" in all of these threads is quite pejorative. "Samsung copied! They can't come up with any new or original, they have to copy! copy copy copy bad!" is all we ever hear and you're surprised by someone finding the term pejorative ?

No I addressed that one pretty early on too, in fact in a reply to on of your own posts.

Refresh my memory 25 pages later. Please don't say that the above paragraph about "sneakyyyy Apple is using Gorilla Glass without telling" is your source...

 

[peteypab2133]

Yeah, heaven-forbid there be accountability and fairness throughout the due process of the legal system.

As a company, if you are going to bring suit against another company and make bold claims of "stealing", "copying", and "thermal nuclear war" (in some related instances) in an effort to damage the credibility and ultimately the livelihoods of individuals working at the said company, then you should be held responsible when the system finds that you were, in-fact, incorrect.

If Apple doesn't like it, then don't take the risk. That is the message the judge is attempting to deliver.

+1.

Sometimes this gorilla warfare does not pay off.

Apple is one dimensional. They need to stop flexing their bank accounts and start out selling Samsung with pure product domination. My GS3 makes iphones look like black and white tube televisions.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The very biography you point to as your "source" is the first time anyone ever linked Apple to Cornings :

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/03/apple-uses-corning-gorilla-glass-in-iphones.html

I don't want to get into a semantic debate with you. You may well have a definition of knowledge that requires absolute infallibility. I'm using the more common-sensical fallible conception of knowledge. Everyone knew Apple used glass in the iPhone. In fact, the initial responses were along the lines of "this is a massive fail, glass is shatter prone, I don't care what Apple's marketing team says." Then Corning shows up on the scene, miraculously I suppose, and everyone says, "oh snap, this actually works and is possible". At that point it was pretty clear to everyone that Apple and Corning had a deal in place since no one else produced that kind of quality glass, ever. That's why when the deal was explicitly revealed, many responded by saying "we already knew this, duh."

You must be new here. "Copying" in all of these threads is quite pejorative. "Samsung copied! They can't come up with any new or original, they have to copy! copy copy copy bad!" is all we ever hear and you're surprised by someone finding the term pejorative ?

Did you ever see me post such drool? No? Then that's irrelevant. From the very beginning I was clearly using "copying" in a non-pejorative sense since I explicitly made the point that everyone copies and that copying is in fact necessary in most instances of innovation. Are you responding to me? Yes. So then concern yourself with what I say, not with what everyone else says.

 

[benjo765]

Look! A pre-iPad bevelled tablet

Although of course we know for a fact that Apple invented brushed aluminium and sheets of glass. See you in court, the Romans!

 

[jmgregory1]

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 :

Your whole argument supposes that Apple and everyone else should not bother patenting anything because these things are just trivial. And this is not anything close to MAD - I'm not sure why you'd make that suggestion in the first place. You may not agree with Apple and that is your right to do so. But to suggest that Apple can't seek to have their patent enforced suggests something entirely different.

And I am not familiar with UK patent law, but assume that the design registration '607 is what we consider to be equivalent to a design patent. It's not as strong as a process patent, but you're kidding yourself to say that Apple or anyone else shouldn't be wasting their (and apparently your) time patenting such things. That's great thinking on your part. Why don't you start contacting just about every major (and minor) corporation that holds design patents and tell them to stop applying for new ones and just give up on the ones they have - because they're a waste of time. And I'm one of those people you need to tell to stop worrying about trivial patent enforcement given I too have design patents.

Not every company files for patent protection in the hopes of licensing. Some really just want to have their product or process protected (I'm one of those people/companies). And whether or not Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement isn't the point. You have to support and seek enforcement of your patent - and let the courts decide whether there is infringement or not. How else could this possibly work? Should the world simply ask you whether there is infringement? Skip the courts and just let you make all the decisions?

----------

Look! A pre-iPad bevelled tablet

Although of course we know for a fact that Apple invented brushed aluminium and sheets of glass. See you in court, the Romans!

Image

Look, Apple applied for and got the patent. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it's not Apple's fault. You should be harping on the patent system if you think it's wrong Apple got the patent.

Further, I can just about guarantee that HP's patent (if they applied for a design patent on this convertible tablet/laptop) would not just be the screen, but rather the entire piece. A framed screen is common on just about all laptops, including having rounded corners. But what Apple created WAS and IS different. Why can't people give Apple credit where it's due? I just don't understand that. Who else created this format of a tablet computer before Apple? Not a convertible, but a touch screen, thin form factor, stylus-free tablet?

 

[aerok]

Your whole argument supposes that Apple and everyone else should not bother patenting anything because these things are just trivial. And this is not anything close to MAD - I'm not sure why you'd make that suggestion in the first place. You may not agree with Apple and that is your right to do so. But to suggest that Apple can't seek to have their patent enforced suggests something entirely different.

And I am not familiar with UK patent law, but assume that the design registration '607 is what we consider to be equivalent to a design patent. It's not as strong as a process patent, but you're kidding yourself to say that Apple or anyone else shouldn't be wasting their (and apparently your) time patenting such things. That's great thinking on your part. Why don't you start contacting just about every major (and minor) corporation that holds design patents and tell them to stop applying for new ones and just give up on the ones they have - because they're a waste of time. And I'm one of those people you need to tell to stop worrying about trivial patent enforcement given I too have design patents.

Not every company files for patent protection in the hopes of licensing. Some really just want to have their product or process protected (I'm one of those people/companies). And whether or not Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement isn't the point. You have to support and seek enforcement of your patent - and let the courts decide whether there is infringement or not. How else could this possibly work? Should the world simply ask you whether there is infringement? Skip the courts and just let you make all the decisions?

----------



Look, Apple applied for and got the patent. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it's not Apple's fault. You should be harping on the patent system if you think it's wrong Apple got the patent.

Further, I can just about guarantee that HP's patent (if they applied for a design patent on this convertible tablet/laptop) would not just be the screen, but rather the entire piece. A framed screen is common on just about all laptops, including having rounded corners. But what Apple created WAS and IS different. Why can't people give Apple credit where it's due? I just don't understand that. Who else created this format of a tablet computer before Apple? Not a convertible, but a touch screen, thin form factor, stylus-free tablet?

Stylus-free is not part of the design patent.

 

[dgree03]

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

Is that right?