Why cant i fail you dangonay

You missed the part where the judge issued "Because they're not as Cool" so now apple can run that "Samsung didn't copy us because they just aren't as cool" and there's not a thing Samsung can do about it because it's part of the Judge's ruling.

Also, go back and look at Every tablet computer before the ipad came out, and then look at them all after, Apple isn't copying anyone, it's everyone else whos "suddenly" coming out with the same form factors, probably not exact copies, but damned close. Fact is, Apple came out with the Newton back in the 90's which was essentially the same idea as the Palm Pilot, and forms the basis. So while you may be an Apple hater, they're on the cutting edge and everyone else is scrambling to catch up. Moreover, market share is great, but in terms of actual profit margins, Apple crushes the competition. Those are the facts.

^ I think the judge in the UK was being sarcastic when he said "cool". Apple already appealed. I think the judge was confusing punishments handed down to tabloids that print articles like "Tom Cruise is gay" and then end up having to print retractions with this case.

Can anyone come up with a single case in history where a company was forced to take out ads in newspapers or put notices on their website? I searched and couldn't find one.

Don't know, but your buttons are working just fine. ;)

It's because of the shareholders Apple has to defend its IP. If you don't defend your IP when you become aware of an infrigement then various things can happen (depending on whether it's a trademark, patent or design and what country you're in). One of those is that you can outright lose the rights to the IP.

If the kids next door have been coming over to your house for years picking apples off your trees and you let them, then you can't expect to be able to charge them with stealing if you later decide you don't want them eating your apples.

There's never been any such case, if you want to look at in a certain light, it's possible the judge did it on purpose so as to allow apple to appeal his entire judgement, and allow it to be heard in a higher court. I've heard of cases where a judge purposefully has gone beyond his mandate or even made errors, that allowed the cases to go higher, as opposed to making the ruling themselves. But in the UK it could be different in terms of how such things are meted out.

The biggest problem, is people continually confuse "iPhones" for iOS, and Samsung as an aggregate to Android, the point being, that there at least 60+ phones out there using differing versions of Android, while there's only 5 (soon to be 6) iphone models. So android isn't even "Android", and Samsung is the major player in terms of phones, but they have several models all running differing versions of Android. Samsung doesn't have the infrastructure of iTunes which is where Apple makes most of it's money. Google does, and eventually most of this is all about how Google ripped off the underpinnings of iOS and the iPhones and Samsung being privy to most advanced designs well ahead of releases is why Apple is continuously going after them.

It's a fun thing to watch, I've got my lawn chair out, we'll see how this plays out. I find it hilarious how people make armchair assessments of Apple is the big baddie without knowing anything about IP law, Tradedress law and merely shoot from the hip spouting a lot of crap off about it. The real fun is watching people make fools of themselves because they irrationally dislike apple now that they're "cool, hot and mainstream".

Google's opinion on patents...

Google Thinks Popular Patents Should Be Essential

Long read (especially if you also read the attached submissions from Google and Apple), but the gist is this:

If you invent something (and patent it) and it becomes wildly popular, then you should lose the right to keep that IP to yourself and should be forced to license it to anyone who wants to use it.

The most amazing thing about this is it's actually Google's official position.

why cant they merger and create applesung! and make the new igalaxy!

why keep apples full name in it...

should be Sampple!

I thought this happens with branding as well. When a brand becomes a really common household name?

I saw this on my FB thing this morning:

http://www.androidauthority.com/appl...ent-war-69575/

I still think the industrial design for a black rectangle with rounded edges and a glass screen is pathetic. I should get one for a square and a circle, just in case Apple decides to make a square and circular ipad

samsung must be like this

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...165/PFFFFT.png

Do you have an example? Everyone calls tissue paper Kleenex, but nobody I know actually puts the word "Kleenex" on their products.

Google is saying they should be allowed to use "Kleenex" or "Coke" because they're popular.

The whole copyright/trademark lawsuits have spiraled out of control, the biggest problem is, there's nothing anyone government can do to stop it, they'd simply be out-lawyer-ed by Apple/Google/Samsung etc. This isn't going to end anytime soon, but I'm not so sure it's stifling anything in terms of innovation. Everything is just tweeks and streamlining of everything else.

While simplistic, and not entirely the whole story, this pic is a pretty good summation of apple's case against samsung.

if that picture is the case then why aren't they going after HTC and LG as well
it's like if MB went after all the other car companies for putting turn signals on their side mirrors

kinda off topic, but this reminds me of tec technology from shark tank

skip to 10:40


mark cuban nails it, but i guess if you're the one with the patent, you can make a killing lol

The thing with apples case is its a generic design for TOUCH screen phones

back in the day they did not have the touch screen tech to do so.

Why don't tv manufacters and monitors sue each other for having the same design.

Oh and keyboards as well, and the mouse

You can patent such stupid shit, like "overscroll bounce"...Yeah that sounds like a billion dollar reason to sue someone.

That's not a very good picture since Samsung still makes a bunch of phones that look like that.

This is a better one that really explains what happened....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sGEXpG_C4Y...640/Slide4.JPG


Or maybe this one.....

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_as...ZZ54AB46C4.jpg


The F700 is significant not because it came out around the same time as the iPhone (it was leaked a few months earlier), but because Samsung has talked about it in court. Their basic premise is: "We were working on touchscreen smartphones before Apple, and we were making advances in many areas. It was inevitable that smartphones would end up looking like they do today as they are a natural progression of earlier designs, like our own F700."

Seriously, I'm not making this up. Samsung expects the court to believe that the Galaxy is a "natural progression" of the F700, despite the fact it came out 2 years after the iPhone, and that if the iPhone never existed the Galaxy would still end up looking the way it did.

i saw that episode. guy's a douche. i think he just wanted to get on TV and show off who he knows (co-founder of apple)

Kind of on topic:

High Caffeine Content: 2007's pre-M3 version of Android; the Google Sooner

Interesting read.

Is it really that much of a stretch to assume that smartphones would naturally follow the UI standards set by desktop systems? All it is is a list of icons on a 'home screen' with a static 'task bar' at the bottom.

The main thing I see Samsung copying is that the icons all have backgrounds. But isn't that more of an Apple UI design thing than the iphone in particular?

The big thing here is that Samsung was privy to a lot proprietary info from Apple, in fact Apple still uses Samsung chips in the iPod Touch and if you look, the design for icons and such all changed AFTER the iPhone came out. Thing is, this is going to go around and around, did Samsung copy them or not? Probably, is Apple going to win out? Probably not. because like its been stated before, if you couldn't incorporate blinkers on a Civic because Audi has them, no one would be able to play in the sandbox and we'd all be driving Civic's.

I don't think Apple is a revolutionary company thats stifling innovation with or without all the lawsuits, they just don't want everyone suddenly coming out with nigh the same thing after they've done it. One of the reasons they're being sued so much is because they're getting Part A from Jack who's already Paid Jill royalties, and Jill is pissed because she's only getting 1 payment from Jack and not from both Jack and Apple, to butcher an analogy. They want to get paid for everyone down the line using the parts even though they've already been fairly compensated. The whole Google thing saying "popular stuff should be public domain" is just stupid and they know it. The first time someone made a search engine with the name "Goggle" and there'd be lawyers jumping out of windows to get the job.

What it boils down to, and I think Apples ultimate argument is, that (and take this an an pseudo extreme example), Lamborghini trying to sue Ferrari for the F430 because the Lambo Aventator is similar in design.. To a lay person? Both are flat wide cars that go fast and are often painted red and look the same from the front... To anyone who's closely associated with cars and and isn't an aficionado, tech specialist etc, it's absolutely not. Hell, I've mistake a lambo for a ferrari when they don't have the badging on them from the front, but the back, you can tell.


But thats the point, Apple is saying someone (The General Public, aka the unwashed uneducated masses), aren't techie phone freak or tablet users, they would confuse an iPhone to a Galaxy, and an iPad to a Galaxy tab even up close. They're black, they connect to the internet they have glass fronts, volume button, on/off switch, phone jack, they're roughly the same size (almost exactly), and they're both phones (tablets). They're too similar, is Apples point.

It's all apples and oranges anyways, this isn't going away, I'm tired of, the courts probably are, but it's not going to go away for a very long time...

::edit::

Just to touch on this pic, and the ones like it. Samsung gets thier "F700" smartphone leaked in August, of 2006. First time ANYONE ANYWHERE has seen it. Everyone goes, ooh, ahh, so revolutionary. This is my favorite pic when people use it to claim some moral high ground and get up on the soapbox to defend samsung.

1) Samsung has been in phone business for X years. what? 10? more? Apple was in the phone business for.... ZERO Years. Samsung was a partner with Apple, it's reasonable to assume, Apple went to them first, showed them some preliminary designs and Samsung went "uh, thats cool dude", and then they started to developed the F700 in anticipation of the iPhone which they would have known was coming. Which, btw, you can tell, the F700 does look like the original iPhone.

The most reasonable assumption? Samsung ripped the design and cranked out a closely resembled SHELL, with all the gear they normally use anyways which they've had YEARS to develop. They did the touch screens, Apple would have used them and they did, because they're the best.

2) Pretending for a second, that Apple "Mysteriously" found the top secret plans to the F700. How the in the hell did Apple develop the fully working functional iPhone in 4 1/2 months repleat with iTunes integration and a multitude of apps to present to the world by JANUARY 2007, and then miraculously build several million units and get them shipped stateside by June??

The most reasonable conclusion? Oh wait. They didn't. They'd had the iPhone in development for at least 2 years before the first one was sold. They would had been building and testing the iPhone, LONG before the F700, maybe not that long, maybe not as long as say 2 or 3 years, but you can be damned sure, they didn't cook it up after suddenly seeing a leaked Pic from Samsung. And they'd set up contracts with places like Foxconn and Samsung etc, all the components places they got the bits and pieces they didn't make themselves, BEFORE the Samsung Leak. Google it, you'll find its all out there.

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_as...ZZ54AB46C4.jpg

^ You make some interesting points, but some of them are completely wrong. Samsung had very little information on the iPhone. They would have known the processor, memory and screen size/resolution and that's it. They would not have seen prototypes and would have no idea about the case, size, shape or color. And there's no way they (or anyone) ever saw iOS before it was launched. So to imply Samsung was in a position to copy because they supply Apple is wrong.

What do you consider stupid? The overscroll idea itself or that it was patented?

Smartphones do not have the same UI standards as desktops. And there is a hell of a lot more to the UI than the icons or taskbar.

Desktop UI's are based around menus and the mouse. You track "events" like mouseover or mousedown and take actions based on those events. You have standardized menus (File, Edit, View) and keyboard shortcuts (Alt-F-S).

Smartphones have a different set of events all based on touch and gestures. Designing an App for the two systems is completely different because the paradigm of the UI is completely different. BTW, this is why people are going to be unhappy with Windows Surface when they expect all their software will "just work" on their tablets and desktops.

This is why you can't say "phones would have taken this path anyway" since there was nothing done previously that had a similar paradign so that you could claim "the market was going this way".

Found it. It's called Genericized trademark:
Generic trademark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if it would apply to this though.

Here's what I copied from Wiki using the Kleenex example:

In the USA, the Kleenex name has become, or as a legal matter nearly has become, genericized: the popularity of the product has led to the use of its name to refer to any facial tissue, regardless of the brand. Many dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, and Oxford, now include definitions in their publications defining it as such.