21–30 of 140 posts
If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't do it.
This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.
Actually, nothing stops Apple from being passive aggressive: http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x
I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…
You need to read this article. http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secr...
Wasn't the original ruling basically saying, "It's not a copy of the iPad because it's not as cool"? You know if Apple really does have to put this notice on their website, they'll probably find a way to work that into the announcement.
Quotation:
> Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.”
Wasn't the original ruling basically saying, "It's not a copy of the iPad because it's not as cool"? You know if Apple really does have to put this notice on their website, they'll probably find a way to work that into the announcement.
Actually, nothing stops Apple from being passive aggressive: http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x
This just shows that "black rectangle with rounded corners" is literally the only design aspect the iPad and Galaxy tab have in common.
http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galax...
I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…
Sounds fair, considering. Apple's suit damaged Samsung, so this seems to me like fair payback.
Actually it sounds silly to me. Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in class and say "Billy is not a poopy-face." The only good thing coming out of this whole patent-a-geddon period is real attention to how broken the system is.
The problem with this analogy is that no one serious for a second has ever doubted that Samsung copied the ipad, the court has simply ruled the iPad design is too generic to make it a protected design. That tablets are like refrigerators and car and airplane shapes - fair game for copying.
I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…
Apple was not the first to produce a round-cornered rectangle
Apple didn't have a patent on round cornered rectangles.
I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a l…
