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

41–50 of 140 posts

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

#41

Post by tysonjennings »

Steko wrote: post #36
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.

See here's the fundamental difference: Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung intentionally copies closely. No one serious would argue either of those points. That is why Samsung is the defendant in all these design cases and Apple has never had this problem no matter how many times Engadget ditto heads want to bring up Steve Jobs "great artists steal" quote. When the judge holds up an LG Prada and an i…

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 Apple I out of a block of wood and a circuit board 40 years ago.

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

#42

Post by jack-r-abbit »

Terretta wrote: post #21

This is not a disjunctive syllogism. 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.

But, appeals aside, the court's ruling makes it so. You go to court hoping the system sides with you. If it does then you take your win and you move on. If it doesn't side with you, you can't just say, "Oh well... your ruling doesn't count." You gotta take it for what it is. If in the process of making your claim you have damaged the name of your opponent then it seems fair to me that you should have to do something about that. It kind of falls into the same thinking that the loser in a case can be made to pay for the winner's legal fees and what not.

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

#43

Post by Steko »

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.

Rounded corners is just one element, full stop.

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

#44

Post by jkn »

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.

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.

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

#45

Post by Retric »

indrax wrote: post #34
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…

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?

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

#46

Post by huggyface »

Steko wrote: post #43
huggyface wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#47

Post by robgough »

286c8cb04bda wrote: post #19
robgough wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... You're sorry he took offence? That's a pretty passive-aggressive apology isn't it? You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you. I don't think you're allowed to claim any high ground here. > I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though. That's supposed to be the whole point, I think.

It was quite genuine, I didn't mean to offend or upset. Lesson learnt!

You don't mention this, but I didn't to edit my original post, as i'm not a big fan of editing post content - but rather adding as part of the conversation.

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

#48

Post by kenster07 »

There is a sense of justice here. They had this coming ever since Apple blatantly doctored those photos to make it seem the Samsung product look more like the Apple product than it really was, as if implying that they thought tech market was so incompetent that such a strategy could work.

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

#49

Post by majormajor »

Terretta wrote: post #21

This is not a disjunctive syllogism. 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.

I have heard that some areas have three-state legal systems, at least for certain types of cases, but that's not the case here. The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Not "Apple has not proven that Samsung infringed."

You don't have to agree with the ruling, but the legal ruling was a "false," not a "null." A "not guilty" verdict may arise due to a lack of evidence or a badly tried case, but legally it means the same thing as a "not guilty" that came about because the accusation was obviously untrue.

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

#50

Post by Steko »

tysonjennings wrote: post #41
Steko wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See here's the fundamental difference: Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung intentionally copies closely. No one serious would argue either of those points. That is why Samsung is the defendant in all these design cases and Apple has never had this problem no matter how many times Engadget ditto heads want to bring up Steve Jobs "great artists steal" quote. When the judge holds up an LG Prada and an i…

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 from the market leading designs as possible. It's true with refrigerators, washers, tablets, phones, etc. That's why the comment you were originally responding to disparaged Samsung.

You drew a false equivalence between completely copying a product and making a smartphone that's very different from other smartphones but apparently is just as bad because it wasn't the very first smartphone Moses brought back down the mountain. Laughable.

Post reply on HN