Samsung Wins UK Tablet Victory Because "It's Not Cool"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apple's advantage always has included being considered more cool. Regardless, congradulations on the victory, Samsung, regardless of how small it is. I don't think that Samsung's stuff is really as similar to Apple's as some have said and this seems to support that view.
 
"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," the company said. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual properties when companies steal our ideas."
Click to expand...

Apple does not own the rights to Tablets, They've been here before the iPad.

Apple does not own the rights to Ultrabooks as well...........hopefully they dont start suing people after granted their newest "patent " on it
Click to expand...

Having read into the new patent a little, it was actually a more specific than it is often given credit for.
 
Apple, "It's fine if we outright steal someone else's stuff and call it our own (Mac, Ipod, etc) but if you make something with a screen and a case we'll sue you for infringement"
 
haha "Apple's intellectual property" haha
If they cannot compete in price/consumer benefit, they should do something else.
By the way: the white rounded charging plugs look absolutely gay!
 
No actual quotes from the judge's statements?
/dissapoint
In a ruling on July 9, 2012, the High Court of England & Wales sided with Samsung that the designs of the Galaxy Tab series of products are 'different' from an Apple tablet design, and do not infringe Apple’s Registered Community Design No. 181607-0001. Samsung products subject to this trial were the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Galaxy Tab 8.9, and the Galaxy Tab 7.7."Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple’s ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple’s design right, such as 'slightly rounded corners,' 'a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,' and 'a thin profile.'"However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'
Click to expand...
 
Nobody mistakenly buys a Samsung while shopping for an apple product. I find this article hard to believe. Judges are supposed to be impartial. It’s not proper for any judge to give his personal opinion. Just shows you the mentality of some apple fans. Even a judge can’t bite his tongue. BTW Judge, I have had and iphone 4 and now have a galaxy S2 and the S2 is superior in every way imaginable. Somehow Apple is applauded when they improve on a design, but anyone else shall be punished. How retarded is it to patent “ how it feels” Samsung should patent, “ Better in every way”
Who else but apple would sue their supplier?
 
I don't even understand the purpose for the judge to say that. "Coolness" isn't a legal description since it's entirely subjective. And isn't the whole point of being a judge is being able to make non-subjective decisions?

This part gets me: "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," the company said. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual properties when companies steal our ideas."

If Apple honestly thinks that Android's UI is "alike" to iOS, then they don't even use their own devices. And TBH, the only real similarity I see between android and iOS are square tiles for shortcuts, and the pull-down tray that iOS blatantly stole from pre-existing android versions. Pot, meet kettle.
 
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]I don't even understand the purpose for the judge to say that. "Coolness" isn't a legal description since it's entirely subjective. And isn't the whole point of being a judge is being able to make non-subjective decisions?This part gets me: "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," the company said. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual properties when companies steal our ideas."If Apple honestly thinks that Android's UI is "alike" to iOS, then they don't even use their own devices. And TBH, the only real similarity I see between android and iOS are square tiles for shortcuts, and the pull-down tray that iOS blatantly stole from pre-existing android versions. Pot, meet kettle.[/citation]

That's why you're not a judge.
 
[citation][nom]nuvon[/nom]Really? Samsung didn't get any of its ideas from Apple?[/citation]

Really? Apple didn't get any of its ideas from Microsofts Tablet in 2002?
 
[citation][nom]nuvon[/nom]Really? Samsung didn't get any of its ideas from Apple?[/citation]I hate Apple, but I kind of have to agree with you here. There's a reason Samsung designed their devices to look like they do. The physical design was not created in a vacuum. Should they ban it as a result? Probably not. But it is a copycat design.
[citation][nom]jamoise[/nom]Really? Apple didn't get any of its ideas from Microsofts Tablet in 2002?[/citation]Of course they did. I point this out to Apple fanboys all the time. I also point out crap that WM5 was doing before Android was released that Android fanboys act like Google created from thin air.

But in terms of design, physical appearance, UI, etc, the Apple devices are quite different from oldschool slates. These Samsung tablets on the other hand, possess a lot of knockoff qualities. Again, I don't think they should be banned, but there's a bit of a difference in what they're doing vs what Apple did - at least in terms of physical device appearance and user interface.
 
Nobody, not a single person I know has ever mistaken any else to be an iPhone. A phone, yes. Nothing more. Same with tablets. The closest looking to an iPad was the HP Touchpad... but its slick cheap plastic was that. Samsung also uses plastic. Not even the MS tablet looks like an iPad.

Does anyone mistake a Ford Mustang for a Chevy Camero? They are both direct competitors, same features & stats, same target buyers. They can't and don't sue each other. But if someone made a car that looked like the Mustang (to mass market) Ford would sue them - and rightfully so.
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Nobody, not a single person I know has ever mistaken any else to be an iPhone. A phone, yes. Nothing more. Same with tablets. The closest looking to an iPad was the HP Touchpad... but its slick cheap plastic was that. Samsung also uses plastic. Not even the MS tablet looks like an iPad.Does anyone mistake a Ford Mustang for a Chevy Camero? They are both direct competitors, same features & stats, same target buyers. They can't and don't sue each other. But if someone made a car that looked like the Mustang (to mass market) Ford would sue them - and rightfully so.[/citation]
How different can you make two similar things? Also, a little funny thing there - notice how the Prius and the Honda Insight look VERY similar? Yeah... it's not like they took a few ideas from the Prius or anything...
 
Screw Apple. They're trying to patent a rectangle shape!! WTF!!! This is called an 'idea'??? Kids have been drawing rectangle since the invention of sticks and sands!
 
THIS is what i have about apple, yes they do make good products, nice smooth user interface but man they are so full of themselves.
Samsung might as well patent the 3.6in and above phones so apple would be stuck with their 3.5 (they are at 3.5in right? sorry, wouldnt know)
 


Nobody said that they didn't. Apple also got their ideas from previous companies too, but they tend to not get legal ramifications about it, well, at least not as badly as they love to dish them out. The point is that ideas can be birthed from others, but they should not be outright copy/pasted. This did not happen, but it is what Samsung is legally being accused of, although in the past, Apple had to doctor photos in order to make it look like Samsung did do this. There's no such thing as a tech company whom makes a product that is purely original anymore. It's hard to make a fully original product because there's only so many ways to differentiate products in times like these where so many things have already been done. The most that can be done to compete is often to make moderate or minor changes rather than major ones unless you're really a genius and figure out something incredible.
 
I would not be surprised if the judge never used the words "cool" or "coolness" in his opinion. That is probably just the writer taking liberties in trying to dumb-down the ruling into a catchy headline.
 
So the judge is saying Apple should patent 'cool' next? Might as well throw in stuff that "just works" while you're at it (in case some folks don't think that is "cool"). Don't get me wrong. I like my Apple products, but patents are not at all related to "cool." Either the product infringes or it does not based on the specific patents. Grow a pair and make the call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom