To illustrate:
Apple iPad:
Kodak 10in Picture frame:
![]()
To illustrate:
Apple iPad:
Kodak 10in Picture frame:
![]()
scaryjim (19-10-2011)
Absolutely not. If you're pro-innovation you should be outraged that systems designed to protect small innovators have become bargaining chips in multi national corporations. If anything the current cracks and inherent abuse of the systems in place (both design and patents) are making the possibility of getting into certain markets nigh on impossible for all but the biggest players (with the most cards). This is not improving, it's getting worse and worse. It's not about Apple as such, but the fact they're just the latest in a long line of companies abusing the system in attempt to squeeze out competition and therefore that there magical innovation we all so want. All I see now is people stacking up huge portfolios of patents in order to either protect themselves or to pre-emptively strike out at a potential competitor. This is not working out well (I'd suggest) for us consumers.
I'm slightly bemused that Apple should be singled out for defence in that regard - they came late to several markets, obliterated all competition (with good product I'll note) and are now doing their very best to stop any loss of market share. All of that is is understandable - they're out to make money after all - but we should remember they're leading the market, not the underdog.
Mind you, all this seems a bit off topic and doesn't concern the specifics of this case - i.e. HTC vs Apple (where I don't really see either has seriously copied the other in such an obvious sense [ha] as cases involving Samsung vs Apple). In the case of the iPad, I quite agree the 'registered design' given to Apple is absolutely tragic - but that's the fault of the system and the idiots who signed it off.
You lose as soon as you use that phrase.Please, I can guess you are either an Apple fanboy or you haven't thought about these stupid patents.
There's no point in getting angry with Apple for utilising the tools that are available to them to protect their R&D.They have tried to patent the shape and size of the iPhone.....when there were plenty of devices roughly the same shape and size anyway.....they then patent a "clean desktop"....come on, it's all completely and utterly retarded generic stuff that should NEVER be allowed to be patented.
Make a 7" device that mimics the iPad, and yes you will be (rightly) sued by Apple. Make a 7" device that is sufficiently different from the iPad and you won't. Samsung have simply chanced getting away with devices that mimic the iPad, and now they're being taken to task for that. It's a risk they chose to take and it's currently biting them on the ass.As for the tablets.....much the same only there wasn't a past of "like sized objects"....but still, make a device with a 7" screen and apple with take you to court for likeness.....fair? Hell no, it's a complete farce.
The banning of sales of the Galaxy Tab will force Samsung to go back to the drawing board to come up with a more innovative tablet. That only benefits the consumer.IMO...They have not only pushed the boundaries of what should and should not be patented, they have clearly stepped way over them and are trying a major anticompetitive campaign based on these highly suspicious patents.....which are starting hurting all consumers.
Irrevelent because their utility is different.To illustrate:
Apple iPad:
Kodak 10in Picture frame:
Small innovators are protected, as long as they've come up with something original that hasn't already been patented by someone else. And Samsung certainly aren't a small innovator! The right to protect a patent is just as valid regardless of how small or large a company is.Absolutely not. If you're pro-innovation you should be outraged that systems designed to protect small innovators have become bargaining chips in multi national corporations. If anything the current cracks and inherent abuse of the systems in place (both design and patents) are making the possibility of getting into certain markets nigh on impossible for all but the biggest players (with the most cards). This is not improving, it's getting worse and worse. It's not about Apple as such, but the fact they're just the latest in a long line of companies abusing the system in attempt to squeeze out competition and therefore that there magical innovation we all so want. All I see now is people stacking up huge portfolios of patents in order to either protect themselves or to pre-emptively strike out at a potential competitor. This is not working out well (I'd suggest) for us consumers.
Im confused then, apple hasnt thought of anything original apart from their UI....
this picture made me chuckle a bit i must admit
http://dadesifun.com/wp-content/uplo...e_-550x391.jpg
HTC were the first for touchscreen phones, samsung had a design that was VERY similar to apple and it was BEFORE apple so really its Apple copying again. HTC are very innovative and yet are getting bombarded with crap from Apple who cant be original.
hopefully HTC have better luck in other areas where it doesnt favour its own!.
Oh and must add, Apple did make Ipod on its own that was their best product ever especially the classic but seriously the iphone and ipad are taking the mick in terms of patent and going after the competition. Ipad similar in many respects to stuff in the year 2000 and before !. And no its not different utility, both the kodak and ipad display pictures/photo albums, sure the ipad can do more but thats a key function for both of them.... again idiocy lets apple get away with it and ofc apple are going to take anything they can.
Lets just begin with:
Lose what?Its a perfectly sensible phrase to use under the context. Your love towards apple seems to be really over the top.
Your missing the point entirely. A touchscreen tablet is a screen and a couple of buttons with as small a bezel as they can technically manage, of course the designs are going to look the same, there is only one real way of achieving this. The aspect ratio is different, the camera is an a different location, the os is different and all of the insides are different. The only thing i can see that makes them so similar is the colour. If samsung had just changed the colour to silver/black instead of black/silver they probably would have got away with and... is that really worth suing over? Apple were not mad that the Samsung was copying their design, they were just mad that Samsung achieved something better than they did and took out the competition using dirty tactics.
The problem with patents is that they have been awarded to such vague and flexible ideas so that no matter how original your idea may be, someone else will be able to twist their massive library of ridiculous patents until it seems close enough to your idea and you have to pay them royalties. Being an inventor, small or large, has become a game of patent chess. The only way to succeed is to buy out other companies which specialize in certain areas so you have their patents to protect yourself OR be bought out by a bigger company who have plenty of patents to protect you.
But it shows the problem with a lot of patents perfectly....
The picture is as idiotic as Apple putting up a Samsung pad next to their iPad. There are only so many ways so achieve the same goal.
2001, StarTrek etc. have all had 'iPad style' devices well before Apple made one. Heck, how does an iPad differ that much to my old Palm, apart from faster chips, more memory, better screen and so on...?
It's just another iterative product in the cycle of getting better hardware and developing software around it. Just because Apple did something well for the mass market shouldn't mean it can put the brakes on for everyone else doing the same iterative design to their products.
Hicks12 (19-10-2011)
how is it hard to copy a physical design? it can be done very quickly... apple have experience in that field and their OS was probably already done/almost ready.
I really do get confused why people always seem to think if something sells amazingly well it is "superior" to anything else, far from that... Apple is an amazing marketing company which is why they sell more. Their products arent better FOR ME, my own personal requirements make iphones useless and overpriced phones (id rather a old reliable nokia) but thats entirely personal to me, they cant be superior if they cant do what i need. Same as many things, take the HD2 it sold less than the iphone i bet but it was far superior in a technical aspect than anything else, having 8 OS possible to have running on it including ubuntu and w98 is something thats excellent
.
Iphone sells well, it suites alot of peoples needs or makes them think they need it, for me it can stay in its case, i want Windows mobile 6.5.5 if im honest
. best OS ever and interface was solid.
But im in the minority!
Haven't we already debunked this one a long time ago now?Im confused then, apple hasnt thought of anything original apart from their UI....
this picture made me chuckle a bit i must admit
http://dadesifun.com/wp-content/uplo...e_-550x391.jpg
http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-sams...nked-20147320/
Did they? What?HTC were the first for touchscreen phones, samsung had a design that was VERY similar to apple and it was BEFORE apple so really its Apple copying again. HTC are very innovative and yet are getting bombarded with crap from Apple who cant be original.
...which is precisely why the point is irrelevant. The iPad's primary purpose is not as a photo frame. If the Galaxy Tab were just a photo frame, there wouldn't be a lawsuit.And no its not different utility, both the kodak and ipad display pictures/photo albums, sure the ipad can do more but thats a key function for both of them...
But they don't have to look as similar to the iPad as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does. That is the whole point! The Acer Iconia Tab A500 is a touchscreen slab with buttons that looks completely different and unique to the iPad, and thus Acer are not being sued. It really is that simple. There's absolutely no point in even attempting to have this discussion if you just shove your head in the sand and chant over and over again that the Galaxy Tab simply looks nothing like the iPad. Even a Samsung lawyer couldn't tell them apart from 10 feet away!A touchscreen tablet is a screen and a couple of buttons with as small a bezel as they can technically manage, of course the designs are going to look the same, there is only one real way of achieving this.
http://www.tracyandmatt.co.uk/blogs/...-a500_05_2.jpg
You lose the argument. If the best you can do to counter an argument is say 'you're just an Apple fanboy' or 'your love towards Apple seems to be really over the top', you've simply lost the argument. Come up with something that counters what I say rather than just making silly, ignorant comments. I have no love for Apple, I'm simply calling it as I see it in front of me.Lose what? Its a perfectly sensible phrase to use under the context. Your love towards apple seems to be really over the top.
Apple showcased the iPhone before Samsung showcased the F700. Apple didn't copy from Samsung, and Samsung couldn't have copied from Apple either as there wasn't enough time between the 2 product announcements to have done so.how is it hard to copy a physical design? it can be done very quickly... apple have experience in that field and their OS was probably already done/almost ready.
Here's a fundamental question for everybody. What right do you think Samsung, Apple, or any other manufacturer has to make use of technologies and designs that are protected by another company?
there is a big difference between the items seen in 2001 and star trek (haven't seen tha one) etc. it's that apple created a working product
you know when someone says "i've invented XYZ", except they haven't actually invented something, they've just thought of an idea to make something, but they haven't made it? that's not inventing. until you have actually designed and created the product, you haven't invented it
apple aren't stopping people making tablets. they weren't the first to make tablets either. there are loads of other people selling tablets, but apple is only coming after 1 or 2 companies who's products look remarkably similar to apples. not just in the product, but the packaging
http://www.bazarpk.com/adsimages/1296328708.jpg
http://forum.diggerswithgratitude.co...alaxy_tab1.jpg
http://compixels.com/wp-content/uplo...b-Box-Open.jpg
http://www.gopostal.biz/wp-content/u...open%20box.jpg
apologies i was posting ina rush, i meant IIRC (not 100% certain) htc (also know as xda?) were the first to make a touch screen phone and all touchscreen phones look similar because its just the optimal design?.
And points noted on the picture, still makes me chuckle though.
I personally think Samsung should get sued for copyright infringement because there are similarities to between the appearance of the products and even parts of the OS that is used. But Apple's pursuit after other companies is questionable.
The allegations against HTC seem more of an indirect attack at Google, i don't think there's any real ground to their suing of HTC. Here's an example of one bizarre patent allegation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07...patent_attack/
And this is why I feel Apple are being anti-competitive by suing Google's partner companies. Let's not forget Motorola have been sued over the Xoom as well.
Last edited by abs_rio; 19-10-2011 at 10:48 PM.
http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-sams...nked-20147320/
even though it's not true?
Is that the real Galaxy tab, or the picture that Apple doctored in the court filings to make it look more like an iPad?
There is an absolute right for a company to protect its invest in R&D by patenting genuinely innovative technology. But the same protection should not be applied to every little nuance of a design, and particularly not when they're not innovative. A touchscreen enclosed in a bezel with curved corners is *not* innovative, and it was *not* invented by Apple. The HP TC1000 /1100 used a very similar design (albeit with a silver bezel) and was released in 2003 - and I doubt even that was completely innovative.
I'm sure Apple have a variety of genuine IP and patent infringements that they are fully justified in fighting, but their tendency to extract the urine inevitably impacts on how technologically aware users view their actions. Part of the problem is the US patent & design copyright systems, which (as far as I can tell) works on a "grant all and consider their validity only when legally challenged" approach (and of course a good lawyer can bog down those kinds of legal challenges for years), but part of it is with the willingness of certain companies to game that system for all that it's worth...
The mobile phone market is basically impenetrable to 'small innovator' given the raft of patents already held - re-read my post, that's the point that you missed.
Stop skimming posts - this was never stated..
Yes, thank you for the obvious statement which I also didn't disagree with - as a registered inventor with several patents for my (large) company I'm well aware of the system and who can use it. Again, to make it painstakingly clear - my issue is with the *system* being at fault, it's being abused at the cost of innovation. Apple are just one of a myriad of companies exploiting this. This is both obvious and bad. Period.
On a personal note I hate software patents entirely - it's a field where everything is naturally derrivative and in certain countries (like the USA) it's horrific what gets a rubber stamp.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)