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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by tysonjennings »

pndmnm wrote: post #93
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. They take the innovations that came before and throw money and Steve Jobs/Jonny Ives taste at it. Right -- or like we always say here on HN, it's not ideas that count, it's execution.

I never said they didn't execute. Nice strawman though.

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

#102

Post by jack-r-abbit »

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #98
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'. hmmm... if "innocent until proven guilty" holds true, then you remain innocent until you have been found guilty. If at the end of trial you have been found "not guilty" then you have not been found guilty, therefore are innocent.

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it). So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved . Thus…

> A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence

The rules of Double Jeopardy already make it pretty damn hard to get a person back into court after being found "not guilty"... even with new evidence. (in the US anyway)

Plus, you don't need to be found innocent. You are innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty.

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

#103

Post by Samuel_Michon »

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).

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

#104

Post by vvhn »

tysonjennings wrote: post #32
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…

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"

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

#105

Post by Samuel_Michon »

robgough wrote: post #10
cryptoz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From wikipedia: > Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person You don't really think that an HTML page inflicts any kind of suffering or pain on someone, do you? First, I don't even think this is 'punishment': it appears to be more focused on clarifying the issue to the public and ensurin…

I'm sorry you took such offence at me using "cruel and unusual" as a turn of phrase, rather than to mean it's dictionary definition. I'll admit I'll happily use it in conversation - but perhaps I should have been more careful online where things are taken somewhat more literally. I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though.

“I'm sorry you took such offence”

Fantastic, I'm a huge fan of the non-apology apology. Hearing or reading one always makes me smile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

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

#106

Post by Steko »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #59
Steko wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 sim…

It's not a general patent on tablet shapes it's a registered design which covers the actual product itself. Which seems like a better system as outright product pirates will clearly run afoul wheras category copying the general shape etc. is allowed.

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

#107

Post by eridius »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #102
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it). So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved . Thus…

> A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence The rules of Double Jeopardy already make it pretty damn hard to get a person back into court after being found "not guilty"... even with new evidence. (in the US anyway) Plus, you don't need to be found innocent. You are innocent... right up un…

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

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

#108

Post by jack-r-abbit »

eridius wrote: post #107
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence The rules of Double Jeopardy already make it pretty damn hard to get a person back into court after being found "not guilty"... even with new evidence. (in the US anyway) Plus, you don't need to be found innocent. You are innocent... right up un…

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.

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

#109

Post by pessimizer »

Jtsummers wrote: post #92
sjwright wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News commentary is turning into something I don't much care to read. (Including my own contribution here, ironcally.)

I'm not sure it's really turning into something terrible, we've just got some trolls running around this week. See tysonjennings remarkably racist, entirely undefended (and indefensible) post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262432 Or his post ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4182402 ) where he rails against someone's anti-Google stance, while later taking on a similar (and perhaps more harsh) anti-App…

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

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

#110

Post by Zenst »

mitchty wrote: post #81

Can someone more versed with the British legal system explain the logic behind this? Coming from the perspective of an American it is a bit peculiar, but then again our own legal system isn't always rational. Just curious if this is common for a defendent to have to publish notices of case outcomes. I know there are a number of other consumer protection laws in the UK. That or pointing to something like popehat that…

Basicly they have to make a public retraction for saying something that has been proven not to be true. Now Apple could do a public retraction along the lines of "Were so sorry Samsung for saying you copied the iPad, we know that is not so as yours is just not as cool as ours" or something like that. Probably wouldn;t be the best of moves but still viable.
Post reply on HN