Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#51

Post by tysonjennings »

Steko wrote: post #50
tysonjennings wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bald assertions do not a non "Engadget dittohead" argument make. Apple has never produced a new product category. They take the innovations that came before and throw money and Steve Jobs/Jonny Ives taste at it. You are blind if you think that what Apple does is real innovation in the sense of what the actual producers of the cellphone did. Or the tablet for that matter. They haven't had a fresh idea since Woz built…

"Apple has never produced a new product category." "You are blind if you think that what Apple does is real innovation in the sense of what the actual producers of the cellphone did. " Please cite where I claimed they did? Straw man much? I'm just pointing out the difference between Samsung and Apple to you. They aren't the same. Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung aims for as little differentiation…

So your argument is that Samsung is imitating an imitator. Excuse me while I don't care.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#52

Post by kenster07 »

briandear wrote: post #14

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…

Thanks for linking the disingenuous comparisons between the two phones.

Oh btw, Apple "rips off" just as much as anyone -- they just have better PR.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#53

Post by tysonjennings »

Steko wrote: post #37
tysonjennings wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as prior art goes? Nope. How long did Apple wait for the LG Prada to be on the market before they aped its design? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_...

Bzzzt, iPhone was demo'd publicly before LG Prada.

Why lie, man? Just to "prove" some point? The iPhone was first demoed by Steve Jobs in January of 2007, the LG Prada was demoed in December of 2006.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#54

Post by wmf »

huggyface wrote: post #46
Steko wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rounded corners is just one element, full stop.

What are the other elements? That it's dominated by a screen? We know it isn't thickness or aspect ratio, or logos on the back, or home screen appearance. The patent in question is literally a rounded corner rectangle.

AFAIK the use of cover glass instead of a raised plastic bezel was actually innovative.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#55

Post by nosse »

huggyface wrote: post #31
Steko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a zombie argument that never dies, can we just down vote these into oblivion before this place turns completely into Engadget? Apple didn't have a patent on round cornered rectangles.

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=drawing#v=o... Yes, they effectively did. That design patent is what they've been using in force.

That should not be patentable. Now it's patent infringement to make a battery of that shape.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn...

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#56

Post by _ea1k »

wmf wrote: post #54
huggyface wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the other elements? That it's dominated by a screen? We know it isn't thickness or aspect ratio, or logos on the back, or home screen appearance. The patent in question is literally a rounded corner rectangle.

AFAIK the use of cover glass instead of a raised plastic bezel was actually innovative.

Not really: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot...

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#57

Post by georgemcbay »

siglesias wrote: post #33
macspoofing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Samsung is a dirty company but in this instance they were in the right. I've used the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. The Galaxy Tab certainly takes its inspiration from the iPad, but come on, so does everyone else! And there's only so many way you can design a rectangular slab of plastic and glass.

At least 50, by my reckoning. I'm thinking of doors, televisions, cups, windows, chairs, eyeglasses, automobiles, all sorts of things with coy simplistic descriptions that exist in innumerable variety of physical appearance.

None of those things (with the arguable exception of eyeglasses) have practical benefits from being as small and light as possible while doing their job, so it isn't the same.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#58

Post by wmf »

Retric wrote: post #45
indrax wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What apple did wrong was suing instead of competing.

How is Apples selling several times as many tablets at a much higher profit margin not competing?

Perhaps it would be better to say that Apple is competing and suing instead of only competing.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#59

Post by ChuckMcM »

Steko wrote: post #28
ChuckMcM wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in class and say "Billy is not a poopy-face."" 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.

And the problem with your problem to my analogy is that if the court actually felt that way (that the tablets are fair game for copying because they are so generic) they would have simply invalidated with prejudice Apple's design patent(s) in the UK telling Apple to pay Samsung's court costs and legal fees and writing an opinion to that effect. Samsung could then take that (and the money they got back) and pursue similar sorts of decisions in other venues.

Re: Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

#60

Post by rimantas »

jkn wrote: post #44
Steko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bzzzt, iPhone was demo'd publicly before LG Prada.

The LG Prada was presented for the iF Design Award in September 2006, and won. See http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable... Edit: not sure which phone was first on the market though.

And iPhone was in the works for 2.5 years before being revealed in public. Or maybe they just did everything betwwen Sep 2006 and January 2007?
Post reply on HN