Talk about ridiculous. I know there was another thread about Google's response to how Patents are forcing innovation to slow down or stop all together. This is absolutely obsurd though...even the time it will take to remove all the tablets from the shelves.
And Apple claims that it looks and feels too similar...such a load of bull****. This is a monopoly that is doing everything it can to supress any sort of competition which leads to a suppression of innovation. And innovation is something that is sorely lacking in North America; it's one of the main reasons why our GDP isn't growing how it should be.
For all you Apple lovers out there, think about it for just a minute about what they're doing...they are trying to gain control of the flow of information. What was once an open source internet will slowly become controlled and closed, and we'll all be paying out our asses for it.
I'd highly recommend "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu for those interested in the Information Industry.
For all you Apple lovers out there, think about it for just a minute about what they're doing...they are trying to gain control of the flow of information. What was once an open source internet will slowly become controlled and closed, and we'll all be paying out our asses for it.
News Flash: Imminent death of the internet predicted
Last year there were estimated to be 5 billion internet connected devices, and its projected that there will be closed to 15 billion by 2015.
There are _maybe_ 30 million iPads in existence, representing less than 0.005% of those 5 billion internet devices. Apple ain't doin jack sh*t to the internet.
Besides, the platform is fundamentally flawed - you can't get porn apps on it, and we all know that's the prime mover for any technology.
__________________
-Scott
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sclitheroe For This Useful Post:
News Flash: Imminent death of the internet predicted
I didn't say they would destroy the internet, all I'm saying is they are moving towards controlling all the majority of the content a user sees on the internet. And if they can have a huge share of that, then they can also start charging everywhere for that content.
They've already monopolized online music purchases...Apple TV is the next product to control movies and television programs through them.
For all you Apple lovers out there, think about it for just a minute about what they're doing...they are trying to gain control of the flow of information. What was once an open source internet will slowly become controlled and closed, and we'll all be paying out our asses for it.
I'd highly recommend "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu for those interested in the Information Industry.
\Rant
Nice conspiracy, but it's actually a lot simpler: Apple is a company who's recent success is based largely on its brand, and its brand is based to a large extent on the physical appearance of its devices. As such, defending against devices that copy its brand is one of the most important things that they need to do to protect their market share and their bottom line. It has a lot to do with company profits and nothing to do with attempting to 'gain control of the flow of information'. Sure, accuse them of being a greedy corporation; I have no doubt that they are. But there's no nefarious plot afoot to control the Internet.
Whether there's patent infringement here... I wouldn't be able to say without actually using one of the Samsung devices. But it does seem foolish by Samsung to take a software look that Apple is already suing them over, putting it on a physical device that strongly resembles Apple's product, and then attempt to bring it to market without resolving that previous lawsuit. What did they think would happen?
Anyway, the explosion of the handheld and tablet market suggest to me that there isn't a suppression of innovation here that's holding down the American GDP; there's more than enough innovation to satisfy the audience for the devices right now. If there's a point that a public has stopped buying products because of lack of innovative features (as has happened in the PC market), then maybe you can make that argument. But that's not the case in the tablet market right now.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I have to admit, it's kind of dumb of Samsung to design something so identical. Given how utterly bland and boring Apple's industrial design is (thanks Johnny Ive), I would have liked Samsung to go in different design directions and they could have avoided this completely.
Or am I reading it wrong and Apple is claiming the software is infringing? Android owners already pay part of the costs in royalties to Apple. It adds like $20 to each Android system (unless you are in China).
I would like technology to go on the path of pharmaceuticals. They can be patented for a certain time and then generics can be made after that time expires. Companies buying up patents from failing companies or being patent whores (patent very broad concept, sue everyone) is a touchy subject.
What do you guys want it to look like? Round? Triangle? Neon green bezel? Most of the hardware design is just obvious. Screens are rectangular, black is the obvious choice for a bezel, etc. Apple is trying to compete through lawsuits instead of innovation. Apple fans believe they're still leading in the latter category, but if they are, why sue the runners up?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to QuadCityImages For This Useful Post:
Talk about ridiculous. I know there was another thread about Google's response to how Patents are forcing innovation to slow down or stop all together. This is absolutely obsurd though...even the time it will take to remove all the tablets from the shelves.
And Apple claims that it looks and feels too similar...such a load of bull****. This is a monopoly that is doing everything it can to supress any sort of competition which leads to a suppression of innovation. And innovation is something that is sorely lacking in North America; it's one of the main reasons why our GDP isn't growing how it should be.
For all you Apple lovers out there, think about it for just a minute about what they're doing...they are trying to gain control of the flow of information. What was once an open source internet will slowly become controlled and closed, and we'll all be paying out our asses for it.
I'd highly recommend "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu for those interested in the Information Industry.
\Rant
So Samsung creates their own tablet that did not sell.
Once they see the ipad2 come out their CEO proclaims that they need to go back to the drawing boards. They discontinue their original tablet.
Soon after they release the updated version that resembles the ipad2.
Some innovation.
The ruling in Germany had little to do with patents.
It was the look, feel and advertizing that got Samsung in hot water. Besides the obvious hardware similarities they modified the Android interface to look like an ipad (custom dock, icons, layout etc). Then they photographed it in the same setting as apple used for the ipad, same background, fonts etc. And then they plastered Europe with these billboards. And they told the retailers to tell customers that the tab is just like the ipad.
Samsung should not be surprised that their fake ipad is off the shelves.
What’s next, an iphone ripoff from Samsung? Oh wait a second…..
Nothing to do with monopoly. There are several tablets on the market and Apple is not suing them. Samsung crossed the line here.
Another example of innovation from Samsung. I realize it’s a 3rd party, but it’s a partner of theirs and the owner is related to Samsung executive.
As an aside....Patent law in the US is likely to change significantly in the next 18 months or so. Both houses have passed extremely similar bills that will likely be combined and passed.
That law changes the US patent system from first to invent to first to file. The entity that files also will no longer have to provide a "best mode" though they will have to disclose enough to show utility.
The disclosure will have to show complete novelty. That definition is still up in the air but it will most certainly include any revenue generated from the product or products derived from the product. That may extend to the IP itself (i.e. soliciting venture capital money using the idea with intention of using the money to file/prosecute the patent and related patents).
It'll drastically change how american companies have to operate and a HUGE advantage will be given to large pharma and other behemoths as they already tend to file everything. It has a good chance of killing any small competition.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I have to admit, it's kind of dumb of Samsung to design something so identical. Given how utterly bland and boring Apple's industrial design is (thanks Johnny Ive), I would have liked Samsung to go in different design directions and they could have avoided this completely.
Or am I reading it wrong and Apple is claiming the software is infringing? Android owners already pay part of the costs in royalties to Apple. It adds like $20 to each Android system (unless you are in China).
I would like technology to go on the path of pharmaceuticals. They can be patented for a certain time and then generics can be made after that time expires. Companies buying up patents from failing companies or being patent whores (patent very broad concept, sue everyone) is a touchy subject.
That's already the case, I believe patents are good for 20 years. I could be wrong on that, but it doesn't matter. Electronics move so quickly patents could have a limit of 2 years and by the time they expired they'd be mostly obsolete.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
What do you guys want it to look like? Round? Triangle? Neon green bezel? Most of the hardware design is just obvious. Screens are rectangular, black is the obvious choice for a bezel, etc. Apple is trying to compete through lawsuits instead of innovation. Apple fans believe they're still leading in the latter category, but if they are, why sue the runners up?
Because they're a corporation, not a charity. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Because they're a corporation, not a charity. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.
Where did I say they were? I'm just saying that innovation should be higher on their list of ways to compete in the market than litigation. Jaguar doesn't sue Hyundai for some of the Jaguar-esque design choices they've made, they just keep making better cars. Nobody thought a 2005 Sonata is a Jaguar, and nobody is going to think a Samsung Galaxy 10.1 is an iPad.
So Samsung creates their own tablet that did not sell.
Once they see the ipad2 come out their CEO proclaims that they need to go back to the drawing boards. They discontinue their original tablet.
Soon after they release the updated version that resembles the ipad2. Some innovation. The ruling in Germany had little to do with patents.
It was the look, feel and advertizing that got Samsung in hot water. Besides the obvious hardware similarities they modified the Android interface to look like an ipad (custom dock, icons, layout etc). Then they photographed it in the same setting as apple used for the ipad, same background, fonts etc. And then they plastered Europe with these billboards. And they told the retailers to tell customers that the tab is just like the ipad.
Samsung should not be surprised that their fake ipad is off the shelves.
What’s next, an iphone ripoff from Samsung? Oh wait a second…..
Nothing to do with monopoly. There are several tablets on the market and Apple is not suing them. Samsung crossed the line here.
Another example of innovation from Samsung. I realize it’s a 3rd party, but it’s a partner of theirs and the owner is related to Samsung executive.
Apple is suing related to the Galaxy devices’ mechanism of interpreting user gestures, including selecting, scrolling, pinching and zooming. Apple also accused Samsung of copying three design patents, including the flat black face of the iPhone and iPad.
To me this seems like the equivalent of Ford suing Toyota for having too similar a steering wheel, glove box, door handle, and using the same colour. It's absolutely ridiculous that those features are the ones that pulled Samsung off the shelf.
And to comment on the iPhone rip-off, what's considered being ripped off? Having a touch screen phone? I think it's fantastic that the iPhone was created. It's a great product and changed the market. But to think that no other phone can be created now like the iPhone is absolutely ridiculous. To compare to vehicles again, that's like saying no other company should have been allowed to build another vehicle other than Ford.
And to address the fact that Apple is only suing Samsung, think again:
Thanks for the links, simmer2. It's now clear to me that we should turn our ire from Apple to Motorola. Look at what they are claiming to have patents over:
Quote:
The technologies that Motorola execs say are theirs involve "wireless communication technologies, such as WCDMA (3G), GPRS, 802.11 and antenna design, and key smartphone technologies including wireless email, proximity sensing, software application management, location-based services and multi-device synchronization."http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...#ixzz1UdXoVfC6
Think about it for just a minute about what they're doing...they are trying to gain control of the flow of information. What was once an open source internet will slowly become controlled and closed, and we'll all be paying out our asses for it.
To me this seems like the equivalent of Ford suing Toyota for having too similar a steering wheel, glove box, door handle, and using the same colour. It's absolutely ridiculous that those features are the ones that might pull iPads off the shelf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fredr123 For This Useful Post:
Simmer2: Can I drop by your house and take all electronics that are made by companies that have launched a patent related lawsuit? You seem to be against companies that launch them, but I think it unfair to be upset and boycott only Apple, so are you willing to forego all electronics by companies that launch such lawsuits? Or is your ire directed at Apple alone?
For the record, I do think that the Samsung device physically looks too similar to an iPad.
My problem is that you shouldn't be granting patents that are that general that really have no influence on the device itself. I think the root of the problem is the patents are either too broad based or there are too many loopholes in the patent game that these companies need to play.
I don't think Apple is to blame, I think the patent system is.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rathji For This Useful Post:
I don't think Apple is to blame, I think the patent system is.
I do mainly agree with that. Apple should never have been given many of these patents in the first place. One of the ones they have is for the slide to unlock feature. So basically they've taken something that's existed for decades:
made a virtual version of it, and patented it. That's just silly. Its a switch. The Droid had a flat back before the iPhone 4, but I guess they weren't smart enough to patent it. But its ridiculous that they could have patented "flat"!
Apple Granted Injunction to pull Samsung 10.1 Tablets from EU Shelves
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
