backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by CBeck113.. on Sep 15 at 2:25 AM

Design was borrowed from picture frame lineup

Tech fans were rocked this morning by news that a German court had granted Apple, Inc. (AAPL) an effective monopoly on tablets, by banning competitors from making rival tablet designs.  As usual DailyTech has some outstandingly sharp readers, who raised a couple points that were so juicy, a followup was in order.

One reader, Solandri, points to this digital picture frame created by Samsung Electronics Comp, Ltd. (SEO 005930) in 2006.  Complete with an 800x480 pixel LCD screen, the device also packed 32MB of internal memory, support for SD, CF and USB devices for memory expansion, and built-in Ethernet for networking.

The device is essentially a tablet -- only, at the time Samsung referred to it as a "digital picture frame".  The device was to be used as a fancy piece of digital art.

Now this device was made four years before Apple released its first iPad.  And it looks virtually identical to the iPad -- and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- in its minimalist design.

Apple chairman, former CEO, and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs has bragged about his mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating [video], "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

So did Samsung "slavishly copy" Apple or did Apple "steal" from Samsung's
"great idea"?  Consider the following:

_______________________________________________________________________

2004:


Apple patents a design for a tablet in the U.S. [link] and in Europe [link].  However, the device doesn't look much like the iPad of the future.  Specifically, the device is much thicker (see Fig. 6) than the eventual iPad design, it has no face buttons (see Fig. 1), and has a much thinner bezel (see Fig. 1) than the original iPad.

In short it bears substantial differences from any product Apple would actually produce.



Images in the design look curiously like those from science fiction movies:



RECAP:
Apple has produced no commercial products at this point, but has patented a design that looks suspiciously like widely published science fiction designs.  The result looks little like the iPad of the future.

2006:

Samsung produces digital picture frames, which are essentially tablets as we know them today, though it lacks an advanced operating system (Android/iOS), multi-touch, or sound.

The device matches the iPad in thickness in some areas (except at the ethernet port region) and the bezel is closer to the iPad's.



Two important things to note are that the back of this design (see side images), doesn't look much like an iPad or Galaxy Tab 10.1.  Second, Samsung's subsequent (2008-era) models abandoned this iconic look.  That said, the face of this commercially sold picture frame is a virtual doppelganger for the eventual iPad and Galaxy Tab 10.1 look.

RECAP:
Samsung has essentially produced the modern tablet as we know it, sans multi-touch and sound.  The only problem?  It doesn't realize the value of what it's created, and it lacks an operating system to let users take full advantage of this breakthrough.

2010:

Apple redesigns its tablet and releases it commercially.  The result is substantially different its own patented design from four years prior:



But it does show some striking similarities to Samsung's (unpatented) picture frame design:



RECAP:
Apple has deviated from its patented design to produce a multi-touch tablet that parrots some aspects of the look of Samsung's picture frame-cum-tablet device.  Granted there's substantial differences between the tablet and the "picture frame", but there's equal or greater differences between the iPad and the patented design from 2004.

2011:

Samsung takes its picture frame, revamps the back, and inserts a multi-touch display and slightly updated internals, trimming the bezel.  The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is born.



RECAP:
Samsung now realizes the gold mine they've designed and debuts a tablet with superior screen resolution, memory, and wireless modem to Apple's design.  They expect it to be a hit and safe from lawsuits.  After all, their design is derivative from an in-house design 4 years before Apple and doesn't look much like anything Apple has patented.

Sept. 2011:

A German court decides that Samsung's new tablet infringes upon Apple's patented design.  The ruling stands in direct opposition to the neighboring Netherlands court, which took a thorough look at that 2004 European Community Design claim filed in Spanish court and realized that it looked nothing like the iPad, much less the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

RECAP:
Apple has essentially sued Samsung and won for a design which it never patented.  The court somehow has confused Apple's current design, with the 2004 patent which bears little semblance to either the iPad or the Tab 10.1.
________________________________________________________________________

We leave it to our readers to judge for themselves what they think of this timeline.  We have resized the images used therein, but in all cases have maintained the original aspet ratios we found them in.  We encourage you to leave feedback.

Again, a big thanks to Solandri for digging up the 2006 Engadget post on that "picture frame"/tablet.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

To the Apple Fanbois who think they have won...
By Ph0b0s on 9/10/2011 9:35:18 AM , Rating: 5
....I have news for you, you lost.

Apple won here, but you as a consumers have lost. With the lack of competition caused by this case there is no pressure for Apple to reduce their product costs. And the other positives that competition causes.

So Apple have won but we consumers have lost. But I suppose from the comments here Apple users are happy if they suffer as long as Jobs is happy....




RE: To the Apple Fanbois who think they have won...
By slatanek on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
By Ph0b0s on 9/10/2011 6:39:15 PM , Rating: 5
Depends on what you mean by "competing on price". In my native UK, all Tab models are exactly the same launch price as their IPAD 2 counterparts. I.e the same price for the same memory and connectivity options. For a device that has the advantage of being lighter and thinner than the IPAD 2, that pricing seems to be competitive to me, but your definition maybe different.

Over the life time of the products, Samsung and Apple would have driven down each others price, as any drop by one would probably have had to be matched by the other. Both android and apple fans would have benefited from that.

With this victory and any future ones, Apple probably won't have to move much off the launch price for the lifetime of the product. And they have their customers brainwashed into thinking this is good news. Brilliant.


RE: To the Apple Fanbois who think they have won...
By ACE7676 on 9/11/2011 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 4
16:9 1280x800 Cornig gorilla glass vs Apple's 4:3 1024x768....which is better again??

Dual Core Tegra2 1ghz is not as good as Apple A5??


By luseferous on 9/11/2011 7:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Resolution is a product of aspect ratio, not pixel density.


Resolution is a product of pixel density, not aspect ratio.

There fixed it for you.

Given a fixed panel size the pixel density = X pixels * Y
pixels.

As a simple example: An aspect ratio of 1:10 has exactly the same number of pixels as an aspect ratio of 10:1. (1000*100 = 100*1000)


By luseferous on 9/11/2011 7:08:57 PM , Rating: 1
...

Whereas as a screen with 10000 * 1000 (10:1 aspect ratio) has 10,000,000 pixels compared with the above example which has a mere 100,000 pixels.


By luseferous on 9/12/2011 7:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the case of the Honeycomb tablets versus the iPad, the increased resolution is due to the fact that they have a 16:9 display instead of 4:3.</quotte

As I set out above it is not! It is down to the number of pixels in a set area! In this case a screen that is roughly 10 inches across the diagonal.

1200*800 =960,000 pixels
vs
1024 * 768 =786,432 pixels

Nothing to do with the shape of the screen what-so-ever.

If the Ipad had a 1600x1200 screen (4:3) then it would have a higher resolution. Again nothing to do with aspect ratio!.


By TakinYourPoints on 9/12/2011 4:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that they were the exactly the same. The bottom line is that the difference in pixel density isn't that much, not even 20%. However, you're still dealing with many MVA displays, or IPS displays with poorer calibration, not to mention weak developer support, slower hardware, AND it costs as much as or more than the iPad.

I really don't care who makes what, I'm typing this from a PC I assembled myself, but to say that the iPad is a poor value given the current state of Honeycomb tablets is asinine.

That said, I know I'm not alone in thinking this way, given how poorly every Honeycomb tablet has sold thus far. It is nice to know that blind Fandroids have an echo chamber to cast downvotes in, at least they have that.


By iateanapple on 9/12/2011 4:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stop talking non sense please.
I own both products, ipad 2 and gtab 10.1
And I call tell you the gtab is sharper, simply because it has higher pixel density, on the ipad I can see pixels around the icons without any effort and at normal viewing distance...
Furthermore the gtab 10.1 is not MVA or IPS from 1996, it's a PLS display, a technology from samsung labs made in 2010, it outperforms any IPS display in terms of contrast, reactivity or color vibrancy.

Refrain from talking if you dont know jack about screens please.


By TakinYourPoints on 9/14/2011 6:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
I am fully aware as I've used both.

As far as I know, only Samsung's tablets use PLS. The rest are MVA such as the Xoom or IPS like the Transformer. There is a difference in sharpness, but nothing big IMHO, certainly nothing radical like the doubling of resolution that will inevitably be coming within a year.

It certainly isn't enough to make up for slower hardware or lacking developer support, but that's just me....


By freeagle on 9/11/2011 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 4
I don't get it then... why fight something that's "so obviously" inferior?


By gorehound on 9/11/2011 9:06:10 AM , Rating: 3
Apple is a sick entity.I do not intend on going near their stuff.I do ot want to have to do anything with Apple the bully and the thief of ideas.


By Motoman on 9/11/2011 11:04:57 AM , Rating: 5
Apple doesn't compete on price. Or features, or quality, or fitness-for-purpose, or any other factor.

The compete based on the fact that they're Apple, and you're not.

Nothing else matters to the mouth-breathing dipsh1ts that keep feeding this epic troll with all of their dollars.


Patent
By dcollins on 9/9/2011 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? The image in the patent looks VERY similar to the final iPad. The only differences are thickness and bevel size, neither of which is substantial.

I like your science fiction argument. It shows how obvious of an idea the iPad actually was. The 2004 patent should never have been granted in the first place.




RE: Patent
By adiposity on 9/9/2011 4:26:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, while I agree that there is plenty of "prior art" for tablets I don't really get the argument that the sketch doesn't look like an iPad.

Also, saying the iPad looks "suspiciously like" pics from sci-fi is a bit silly. Any tablet does. The point is the tablet is an obvious idea.


RE: Patent
By adiposity on 9/9/2011 5:24:31 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, what about this was mod-down worthy?


RE: Patent
By bplewis24 on 9/10/2011 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 3
Probably because by that same definition, every tablet looks like an iPad, and vice-versa. In the same way that virtually every LCD TV looks the same.

I'm not sure why that point is so hard for readers--and apparently judges--to grasp.


RE: Patent
By drycrust3 on 9/11/2011 12:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
One of the facts of history is that sometimes inventions are things that in hindsight are pretty obvious, e.g. the safety pin. That said, I really do think Apple didn't invent anything here, what they did do is apply for a patent and got it simply because no one else had the time or the resources.
There seems to be only one solution for Samsung, and that is they sell their tablets through a mail order company in a country where the tablet isn't banned from sale. Of course, that will mean employment for people in that country and not in the USA, but I don't think Apple will worry about that.


RE: Patent
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 4:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
everyone seems to forget that In 2002, original equipment manufacturers' released the first tablet PCs designed to the Microsoft Tablet PC specification. This generation of Microsoft Tablet PCs were designed to run Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, the Tablet PC version of Windows XP.[3] This version of Microsoft Windows superseded Microsoft's earlier pen computing operating environment, Windows for Pen Computing 2.0. After releasing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Microsoft designed the successive desktop computer versions of Windows, Windows Vista and Windows 7, to support pen computing intrinsically.


RE: Patent
By drycrust3 on 9/11/2011 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
Meaning ... what?
There is no evidence that Windows XP Tablet Edition was used on a tablet with a touch sensitive screen.
The following is a website with some guys holding a production model Elographics Inc tablet with a touch sensitive screen ... dated 1973!
http://www.elotouch.com/AboutElo/History/default.a...


RE: Patent
By casper55117 on 9/11/2011 2:48:08 PM , Rating: 1
A tablet personal computer (tablet PC) is a portable personal computer equipped with a touchscreen as a primary input device, and running a (modified) classic desktop OS.[9] designed to be operated and owned by an individual.[10] The term was made popular as a concept presented by Microsoft in 2000[11] and 2001[12] but tablet PCs now refer to any tablet-sized personal computer regardless of the (desktop) operating system[13]
via wiki


RE: Patent
By drycrust3 on 9/12/2011 1:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously didn't look at the picture and read the text in the link I provided. Either the information on the website is fake or it is real, and if it is real then basically Apple's patent is invalid by about 30 years.
Look at the picture: The device being held has a touch screen and has about the same dimensions as the modern tablet, and it appears to have not buttons on it either. As such, it looks like Apple just copied the Elograph.


RE: Patent
By CBeck113 on 9/15/2011 2:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
nd running a (modified) classic desktop OS.[9] designed to be operated and owned by an individual.[10]


Interesting definition. Wouldn't this also help Samsung's case, since its Tab uses Android, which is a mobile telephone OS?
Servus, Charlie


hmm
By shane.carroll on 9/9/2011 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
Oh I'm sorry, what were you saying Tony Swash? Couldn't hear you over all that IP theft your idol was committing.




RE: hmm
By CrazyBernie on 9/9/2011 4:12:09 PM , Rating: 5
Moooooooooommmy!! He's feeding the trolls again!


RE: hmm
By mkrech on 9/9/2011 4:27:25 PM , Rating: 5
http://bit.ly/qyZbjJ
:)

Credit where it is due.
From: Rosscott, Inc.
So you’re MAD about something on the Internet…


RE: hmm
By BSMonitor on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By bplewis24 on 9/10/2011 11:01:57 AM , Rating: 5
You do realize that is EXACTLY how these patent suits Apple is conducting right now are being argued, right?

They're claiming because of things like size, shape and other dimensions that they somehow are being "copied."

That is entirely relevant to these idiotic and purely anti-competitive suits.


what about microsoft
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 4:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
they could put apple's d!ck in the dirt




RE: what about microsoft
By Flunk on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: what about microsoft
By kleinma on 9/9/2011 5:05:59 PM , Rating: 4
No they don't. Microsoft is making MILLIONS from android.. much less is to be made from Apple.


RE: what about microsoft
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 5:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
yep $15 per handset


RE: what about microsoft
By Shig on 9/9/2011 7:00:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, 15$ for basically doing nothing.

Licensing is sweet.


A picture frame is not a mobile computer
By Maxximoto on 9/10/2011 8:29:28 AM , Rating: 1
So you are comparing a picture frame to a mobile computer? They aren't even in the same product category. And they only look similar from a very specific angle. Looking at them from the side or back, there is no confusing the two entirely different products.

I think many here, including Jason, are using emotion instead of logic or simply don't understand a fundamental point about DESIGN(or perhaps in Jason's case, trolling for clicks). Think about coffee tables for example. They are all just square rectangles with four legs, right? Yet they don't all look the same. The difference is the design, or appearance. Different colors, sizes, textures, materials, heights, etc. Cars all have an engine and four wheels, but they don't all look the same.

Let me try a hypothetical with the car industry. Let's say there are all sorts of cars, trucks, SUV's but nothing in the Sports car category has been successful yet. Many companies have tried to create the category but consumers aren't buying any of them. Company Z designs and patents a Corvette, just to pick an example, brings it to market and sells gazillions of them. Could Company A-Y just duplicate Company Z's Corvette body style but put their logo on it and sell it to compete with them? Of course not, but they could create their own sports car design, let's say the Mustang(or whatever) and try to compete with that. The difference is the DESIGN.

With tablet computers there is much more to design then a square flat touch panel with bezel. Samsung chose to make their tablet(and phones) look like Apple's for a reason. Incredibly, the vast majority of people aren't technically literate, or even brand aware, but they know what they saw, that is, they remember what it looked like. These ignorant shoppers would easily confuse Samsung's tablet offering with Apple's because they look practically identical unless you kept up with the latest stats and brands of available options. The vast majority of buyers simply don't know the difference. Samsung, though they would never admit it, are trying to capitalize on these ignorant buyers. That is what Apple is trying to stop, just as the maker of the Corvette in the above hypothetical would be. They would say, design your own damn sports car, don't copy mine.

Look at a Motorola Xoom, Rimm's Playbook, HP's Touchpad, and note they they are all square flat panel touch based computers that look nothing like an iPad 2. They have created their own design. If Samsung had done the same, they wouldn't be getting sued by Apple.





By slatanek on 9/10/2011 12:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, thats a good point. its about the DESIGN and from all these posts I get the impression that some people don't even now what a DESIGN is. people just take it for granted.


By TakinYourPoints on 9/11/2011 5:45:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Look at a Motorola Xoom, Rimm's Playbook, HP's Touchpad, and note they they are all square flat panel touch based computers that look nothing like an iPad 2. They have created their own design. If Samsung had done the same, they wouldn't be getting sued by Apple.


Exactly


By Fritzr on 9/12/2011 4:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see ...
screen shape: Dictated by industry standard
aspect ratio: Must adhere to an industry standard...the courts ignored this difference 4:3 vs 16:9
Thin like a tablet: Uhm thin is what everyone has been trying to do for years, flat back so it will lie flat on the table, again everyone makes laptops, netbooks, ereaders etc. with flat backs, so they will lay flat.
Rounded corners to that the sharp points do't hurt a user ... find someone who does NOT round the corners on a portable device.
Bezel to conceal the edge connections to the screen...again this is a universal design feature.

Samsung could make the case with wavy edges and take out a European design patent on this feature, but it comes down to form follows function. A tablet is an appliance that consists of a screen and a frame around the screen ... any more 'design' is frivolous. The designer's main job is placing the logo and decicing where the periperal ports will be placed.

Apple has scorec a major win here ... imagine if Ford had taken out a design patent on a sedan and sued everyone who built a car that featured a (relatively) flat hood and trunk with a popup in the center with windows above the hood line on all four sides ... this is essentially what Apple has done.


judges in Germany
By renosablast on 9/9/2011 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
So are judges in Germany elected or appointed? Is it like the US where they can be bought and paid for through "campaign contributions"; either directly or to whoever "appoints" them?
Something mighty fishy about this ruling - especially since Apple got caught "fabricating" and "enhancing" evidence.




RE: judges in Germany
By fteoath64 on 9/10/2011 6:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
@renosablast: Agree. But the complaint specifically said this design will confuse the customer by mistaking the Galaxy 10.1 as the iPad. Can people not SEE the SAMSUNG name on the Galaxy device ?. Can people NOT read ???.


RE: judges in Germany
By BZDTemp on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: judges in Germany
By Digimonkey on 9/10/2011 5:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Or it's not being caught by the German citizens. It's naive to think those in power are not tempted to elevate or keep their positions of power or increase their financial well being through selfish/illegal acts. It really has nothing to do with nationality.


By smitty3268 on 9/9/2011 4:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
The lawsuit in Germany is over a "Community Design", which is something unique to European law. In American terms, it's something in between a patent and trademark, which is why people have just been calling it a patent.




By ClownPuncher on 9/9/2011 5:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
That's a stupid law.


Its only obvious...
By ihateu3 on 9/10/2011 7:15:23 AM , Rating: 1
All these Apple fanboys should have absolutely nothing to worry about, since Apple does everything right and better than others, there should be no problem with a little competition...

Seems Apple doesn't think that way, why would they want to sue a company out of the same market if Apple is superior, Apple should have no worries right? Maybe Apple isn't so superior and is worried that the competition has(or can) done it better? Really Apple, and Apple fanboys, we bow to your superior everything, give us weaklings just a small chance. There's obviously no way we can be better than Apple, so why sue us, are you showing concern?????

A company built on stealing ideas (self admitted) is now suing those who supposedly stole ideas from them! Didn't we learn it from you Apple, look where it got you, we wanna be just like you... EVIL!




RE: Its only obvious...
By TakinYourPoints on 9/11/11, Rating: -1
RE: Its only obvious...
By dark matter on 9/11/2011 12:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Are you on the wrong article? Did you not read even the headline? Or was it straight the comments to troll.

Try harder, as even as a troll you utterly fail noob.


RE: Its only obvious...
By dark matter on 9/11/2011 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Are you on the wrong article? Did you not read even the headline? Or was it straight the comments to troll.

Try harder, as even as a troll you utterly fail noob.


hmmm...
By just4U on 9/10/2011 1:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
My Etch a Sketch was the best damn tablet I ever owned.. It had a touch screen to! I think they got the idea from that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etch_A_Sketch




remember same-sung ?
By vesord on 9/10/2011 5:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
RE: remember same-sung ?
By TakinYourPoints on 9/11/11, Rating: 0
court
By JRBY on 9/10/2011 7:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
Simply put, the court was duped by apple




am i blind ? (or someone else)
By vesord on 9/10/2011 10:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
Take a look at this picture (snapshot from gadgetexperts video).

http://www.image-share.com/ijpg-915-288.html




Anonymous
By 90014 on 9/11/2011 4:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Put Anonymous on the case, they can dig up anything. Oh wait, they usually work on issues that matter.




All the JM's trolling won't change the fact...
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: All the JM's trolling won't change the fact...
By Ramtech on 9/9/2011 4:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
And your trolling will change what?


RE: All the JM's trolling won't change the fact...
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 8:01:13 PM , Rating: 3
if your gunna quote a movie atleast get the line right


By darkhawk1980 on 9/9/2011 9:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
You make it seem as if it's the end of the world....what about the Netherlands ruling? Lets face it, they basically ruled that Apple was so vague that their patent was ridiculous. Amazing, people in a different place had a completely different view of things....

Plain and simple, people see things differently. Personally, I agree with the Netherlands ruling. If you can patent vague ideas, then it really leaves alot to be determined by courts, instead of being a clear cut and dry matter. We then have to waste time, money and effort in courts, lawyers, and time.

Put it in perspective, I'm going to patent a square or rectangular shaped touch capable panel that can be held or mounted on the wall, and is used to control my house and appliances.

That alone would allow me to sue a number of alarm companies, remote control companies, and possibly others. It'd be ridiculous. But I'm pretty sure you'll just ignore all that, I mean Apple can't possibly be wrong! They patented EVERYTHING first, right?


This is about trade dress
By FATCamaro on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
It's all about who's 1st to market
By vision33r on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By kleinma on 9/9/2011 5:04:53 PM , Rating: 5
And ford came before Chevy, so those bastards better not be making any vehicles with 4 wheels that go when you push the gas!


By ACE7676 on 9/11/2011 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 1
Newsflash - Those other tablets you mentioned have the same form factor and general look as the ipad/ipad2.

I wonder what you idiots will say when HTC slams Apple to the wall with their newly founded patents from Google in their ongoing case.


By ACE7676 on 9/11/2011 10:47:00 AM , Rating: 1
The world didn't acknowledge anything...since when did Germany represent the entire world???? Samsung is already collecting money from Apple in the Netherlands...how much time before they win this easy appeal in Germany and start to collect there as well? HTC just fired back at Apple's suit against them with 9 patents given to them from Google...how long before apple loses that one and has to PAY HTC??? Starting to see a trend yet??


The problem is...
By TEAMSWITCHER on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
Oh give up...
By messele on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: Oh give up...
By xti on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: Oh give up...
By ICBM on 9/9/2011 5:49:36 PM , Rating: 5
Where are you coming from with this? Jason is making very valid points, and is providing evidence to support his argument.

Long and complex case? Really? Apple may try and make you think it complex, it seems fairly simple. Jason gets that. the judge from the Netherlands gets it. Fan boys and the German judge are the only ones who don't.


common guys...
By slatanek on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: common guys...
By VoiceOfLogic on 9/10/2011 12:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
so... do you (then) think that Ford should sue every car manufacturer because they thought of and built it first?
because, last time i checked, every car has 4 wheels with brakes on them, one engine, one steering wheel etc.

this claim of yours is not right. cause then we would have cd players manufactured only from philips, tv sets from idk who, glass from the egyptians, wheels from the first homosapiens and fire from Prometheus.

just because a company released one device doesn't mean that only they have the right to release something similar.
i understand the looks of it and that devices should not be similar but c'mon.. think about it. we are talking about competition.

customers (us) should be able to have choices and purchase devices that suit our purposes. if you love microsoft and especially windows, why should you not have the choice of purchasing a tablet with windows in it?
why should Apple give condescension to anyone to make a tablet with windows?

but hey, Apple don't want to compete, do they?..

(sorry for the bad english, it's not my mother tongue..)

Cheers !!!


RE: common guys...
By slatanek on 9/10/2011 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 1
I think when a car looks just like that Ford, it should be banned. I mean all cars have 4 wheels and a steering wheel, but they do have different light shapes, maybe some specific wings on them whatever makes them not a copy of Ford but a BMW car.
let's face it, any Android tablet on the market is a ripoff. when you look at it it reminds you a big iPhone. if it would be substantially different from iPad there would no question. but if something looks almost exaclty the same I ask myself what is the purpose of this? the same applies to the Ultrabook thing. Intel gave some specification for it and now almost every Ultrabook that has been announced looks like A Macbook Air. I mean why do they always have to go the easy path of copying design, after all being a photog, doing some design aswell I understand someone is designing the look of those things. people are spending months or even years of their lives, putting their thought into it to make product look good and maybe even distinctive and then someone comes and just says "oh, I can can do that too, let me see.... copy paste".
after all do we really want to live in a world where everything is just a copy of a copy of a copy?
to me there was one Amy Winehouse and she was enough. don't want to listen to those cheap ripoffs of her style and thinking somebody doing money on it is... just immoral.

just to answer the "Apple fanboy" posts - I'm not an Apple fan, been using Windows for like 15 years, made the jump to OSX few months ago and I see no point in saying OSX is no good cause its Apple. it works much better for me and although there are few things which I could do quicker in Windows 7 would never go back. its always a tradeoff but I get the impression that Apple just makes the better choices or semms to get the balance right if you wish.

cheers


RE: common guys...
By Gondor on 9/10/2011 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
So in your opinion some differing features (such as the shape of headlights) make cars completely unlike one another yet same doesn't hold true for tablets ? Galaxy Tab is as similar to an iPad as Ford Fiesta is to a 1-series BMW.


RE: common guys...
By justjc on 9/10/2011 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ford didn't even come close to inventing the car.

The first car with a gas engine was made in 1862 by Etienne Lenoir(French) the year before Henry Ford was even born. Fords first horseless carriage was made in 1896 and the first to be widely sold the Model T hit the streets in October 1908.

Also there are several 3 wheel designs for cars through history and a couple with more engines.

Other than that I agree that some designs are to generic to be considered valid and Apples community design is certainly one of them.


Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By michael2k on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 7:57:17 PM , Rating: 3
1888: U.S. Patent granted to Elisha Gray on electrical stylus device for capturing handwriting
aka a tablet


By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 8:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
1915: U.S. Patent on handwriting recognition user interface with a stylus.[2][6]
1942: U.S. Patent on touchscreen for handwriting input.[7][8]
1945: Vannevar Bush proposes the Memex, a data archiving device including handwriting input, in an essay As We May Think.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By p3ngwin on 9/10/2011 3:58:09 AM , Rating: 1
and how is a computer attached to a NON-touchscreen monitor, that still needs a keyboard and mouse, relevant to a tablet which is a complete computing device with multitouch screen ?

i can cite my desktop PC hooked up to a nice LCD flat screen just like you showing an old computer hooked up to a flat screen, although i don't see the relevance to tablets.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By ACE7676 on 9/11/2011 12:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
For all those that are crying about how Samsung copied Apple and all the inventions that are god-like from Apple, wake the hell up. Apple did NOT invent a regtangle shaped tablet. They did NOT invent it's "minimalistic" style. They did not invent the UI components on the iphone/ipad/ipod either. All of these technologies and user interface components have been out for more than 10 years prior to Apple's first iphone. They did NOT invent anything. they did, however, come up with their own iteration of it with IOS. this is exactly what Android did. Neither are a copy of each other. Plain and simple. The Eeepad Transformer, Acer Iconia, Motorola Xoom are no different from the Ipad than the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The Germany case was a travesty and it will be contested in a higher court. You can all bet your asses Samsung will win there and Apple will pay Samsung a lot of money in damages. Apple knows this ALREADY. They are simply trying to stifle competition in a dirty non-competitive fashion. It is common knowledge among the "players" in the industry that Apple will go nowhere with these petty lawsuits. But when you have as much money as apple does, stifling the competition in such ways doesn't matter to them. Apple is also not the first company to do this. The patent wars between all the players is disgusting and pathetic. Google mainly purchased Motorola for certain patents they own to protect Android and take aim at Apple. Apple was the most vocal company when Motorola was acquired....why do you think so? Not like they have to worry if Google bought a hardware company to make phones do they?? This is a dirty war and everyone is a part of it. NO ONE is innocent and you can bet your ass they ALL will fight dirty in court to win licensing deals. Apple is just going about it like idiots and even they did not expect this kind of backlash....don't expect more of these lawsuits from them anymore....well maybe they will and then sink back into oblivion like they were prior to their "iworld." Microsoft is the only smart one here as they are scoring licensing deals left and right and haven't had to go to court so these types of "hate" threads don't exist for them. They learned their lessons from the past.

In closing, EVERYONE should be staring at the companies that benefit wrongly without making negative airwaves....Microsoft is probably more guilty of this than any other corporation right now. They make more than $15 for every Android handset and they did absolutely NOTHING to develop it or make it the success it is today.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By ACE7676 on 9/11/2011 12:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone else notice these lawsuits are front and center for the world to see Samsung have stupid injunctions posed against them right when the superior Galaxy SII is about to be available on all 4 major carriers in the U.S. along with the iphone5???

These are all dirty corporate tactics being played against the competition...it's just the scope of the game has now changed for these billion dollar companies...namely "patent" wars...in other countries it's called community design...but it's the same thing everywhere. No disrespect to Dailytech or any of the other hardware reporting agencies out there, but you will never find the proper corporate greedy motivations on sites like these. You could if you read sites dedicated to the business world.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By cmdrdredd on 9/11/2011 9:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Galaxy S II is not going to Verizon, the Droid Prime is which is many times better than the GS2. It's got a bigger screen, higher rez, and supposedly 1.5Ghz dual core with Android 4.0.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By cmdrdredd on 9/11/2011 9:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's what Apple is afraid of...their iPhone 5 will be junk before it releases because Samsung has a device multiple times better before they even get the new iPhone out the door.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By Dug on 9/14/2011 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
"For all those that are crying about how Samsung copied Apple and all the inventions that are god-like from Apple, wake the hell up. Apple did NOT invent a regtangle shaped tablet. They did NOT invent it's "minimalistic" style. They did not invent the UI components on the iphone/ipad/ipod either. All of these technologies and user interface components have been out for more than 10 years prior to Apple's first iphone. They did NOT invent anything. they did, however, come up with their own iteration of it with IOS. this is exactly what Android did. Neither are a copy of each other. Plain and simple."

I would like to point out the following-
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-befor...

If they did not create the first rectangular, "minimalistic", UI style touch tablet, then who did. I'm curious who 10 years ago patented this?


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By Dug on 9/14/2011 4:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
And Samsung did copy Apple after they saw the product. The Galaxy did not look like it does in its current version when they first made it.

Whether or not Apple invented the design is irrelevant.
What matters is they have a patent design. Samsung does not.

Samsung would be suing Apple if was reversed.


RE: Apple's 1998 Studio Display
By TSS on 9/11/11, Rating: -1
I fill file patent to open mouth.
By Roy2001 on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 7:58:30 PM , Rating: 4
my mouth is closed but i can still type


Defending the the lame and lazy
By Tony Swash on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: Defending the the lame and lazy
By ihateu3 on 9/10/2011 7:50:48 AM , Rating: 1
All that typing to prove a point that Apple invented all this? Worthless, considering HTC had beaten Apple to the market with both the O2 XDA, and also the HTC Touch phones, and even had 3G, who was Apple copying? I guess one could agree with your whole post above, but replace Apple with HTC...

If your going to try and make an educated post, get educated before you do so...


RE: Defending the the lame and lazy
By ihateu3 on 9/10/2011 7:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, I just realized something, does that mean Apple not only copied HTC for the smartphone with a touch interface but also later with the iphone 3g considering apple decided to now use the 3G network that HTC had been using???


RE: Defending the the lame and lazy
By Tony Swash on 9/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: Defending the the lame and lazy
By ACE7676 on 9/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: Defending the the lame and lazy
By ACE7676 on 9/11/11, Rating: 0
By W00dmann on 9/11/2011 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
One key reason why Android has so many activations is, of course, because many of their phones are low- to no-cost. However, rumors point to Apple releasing a low-cost iPhone in the near future. Assuming so, check this space in 1 year. I'll bet iOS activations start to close in on Android.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki