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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by batiudrami »

CubicleNinjas wrote: post #83
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying a design is not necessarily illegal or "dirty". The benefits to consumers and society of companies mimicking each other can be huge.

So this was an altruistic theft? I thought it was to steal money from confused consumers with an inferior product.

No one is confused. It says 'Samsung Galaxy Tab', right on the box, along with a Samsung logo on the tablet. The only way it could be confusing is with a salesperson using phrases such as 'basically the same', which could lead people to purchasing the wrong one.

It's not like the Chinese iPad clones which come with the same box design, the same style logo and a big apple on the back of them, it's Samsung selling a product, which out of necessity, has similar design features.

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

#122

Post by hahainternet »

vacri wrote: post #117
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…

The fullscreen smartphone was a new category of theirs, wasn't it? The cynic in me would also say that mp3 players that don't have a radio were probably also pioneered by them :)

Not really. I still have one of these lying around somewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_TyTN

There were many other options, and as usual Apple simplified and minimised.

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

#123

Post by pessimizer »

tysonjennings wrote: post #112
pessimizer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing out that first comment. It is a new low for any I've seen on HN thus far.

It warms my heart to see a thriving groupthink osmotically reproduce and grow.

Because warmed-over bro-backslapping Sailerisms sure don't stink of herd mentality, right? Aren't you late for your mutual-reinforcement MRA support meeting?

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

#124

Post by Terretta »

slavak wrote: post #66
Terretta wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, the entire presentation is virtually indistinguishable. http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galax...

http://www.singaporeclassifieds.org/wp-content/uploads/produ... Because they are both white boxes with large pictures of the product on the front? Well color me outraged! I think anyone with any eye for design would agree the two boxes are sufficiently different to rule out the possibility that Samsung was trying to pass of as an iPad. (Not to mention the two prominent uses of the Samsung brand on the Tab packaging's…

The default screen on Nexus 7 is not mistakable. TouchWiz or Sense are not mistakable. This box shows a tablet configured to look like iOS, which isn't what I or most Android owners do with our Android tablets.

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

#125

Post by ricardobeat »

vvhn wrote: post #104
tysonjennings wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple just dreamed up the idea of a smartphone out of thin air? What about the touch screen? Multi-touch? Gridded icons? Rectangles? Apple is an imitator, a marketer, and a polisher of other people's ideas. Little more. Your blind worship is shamefully ignorant. Exhibit a) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_... This preceded the first iPhone.

iPhone - Announced, demoed on stage on January 9, 2007. Went on sale June 2007. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada " It was first announced on December 12, 2006 .[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] " I wouldn't claim it "preceded"

Right, because the iPhone was invented and built from the ground up between january and june 2007.

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

#126

Post by eridius »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #108
eridius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not innocent. That would be a strange assertion before anything have been proven. You are presumed innocent.

ok... you are presumed innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty. Same difference.

Not really. If you really are innocent then no evidence can possibly change that. But if you're merely presumed innocent, then new evidence can prove your guilt.

And in the case of a civil suit there's no double jeopardy, so you can't even say it doesn't matter.

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

#127

Post by Samuel_Michon »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #103
kristopher wrote: post #9

Where would one put such a thing on one's website? The very top page for six months? As an aside, if Apple were to pronounce such a claim on it's website, what would that do to ongoing battles in other jurisdictions?

Presumably, Apple would only need to change the front pages of its UK websites (apple.co.uk and apple.com/uk).

Odd coincidence? Apple got its hands on Apple.co.uk just a week a go, after it had been owned by an illustration agency for years:

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/apple-takes-control-of-a...

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

#128

Post by PakG1 »

jmduke wrote: post #86
ajross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your requirements analysis all mixed up here. Legal logic isn't the same as mathematical logic. The goal isn't to "prove" a fact here, it's to "settle" the fact so that people can go on with their lives. The courts pick boolean logic as their basis. So yes, legally, it is proven that Samsung did not copy Apple, no matter how many fancy-pants math terms you throw at them.

I think you're both right? Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'. That being said, the sales injunctions that Samsung occured were a clear case of damages as result of a case for which Samsung was not found guilty; thus, its fair for Samsung to receive compensation.

Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

This made me think of Schrödinger's Cat.

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

#129

Post by jack-r-abbit »

eridius wrote: post #126
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok... you are presumed innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty. Same difference.

Not really. If you really are innocent then no evidence can possibly change that. But if you're merely presumed innocent, then new evidence can prove your guilt. And in the case of a civil suit there's no double jeopardy, so you can't even say it doesn't matter.

true on that.

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

#130

Post by mattyohe »

tysonjennings wrote: post #53
Steko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"January of 2007, the LG Prada was demoed in December of 2006." Yes, tysonjennings, this is correct.

Although, I hope you don't actually believe this is evidence that Apple "aped" the Prada.

Post reply on HN