You are tossing out the entire point of the complaint and focusing on the section that's required to be a bare bones description. The new Tab looks a lot like the iPad. If they were turned off and you just saw the face of it or if they were turned on and you just saw the App Drawer open on the Tab, regular Joe users would be confused as to which is which, same goes for the box at first glance, before you read the words, same goes for the obvious homage of the icons in TouchWiz, so much so that Samsung is killing it off, the box design and tray setup in the way that it's being done here wasn't really done before Apple did it. It's not whether someone walks out of the store with it instead because they think are convinced it IS an iPad, it's that enough elements are alarmingly samey that it violates Trademark and or Trade Dress law. Samsung is trying to say, "Hey, you hate Apple without regard to logic, stop posting on the [H] forums for a sec and buy this because it's close enough to an iPad that you'll like it without having to buy from Apple!". Box: No tabs (no pun intended), no fold overs, a bottom with a tray underneath which the cords and manuals stacked and on top of that a plastic tray cradling the device and a top slightly larger that comes down over it. Together these things point to copying, as does the new design announced as a direct response to the iPad2. It's not about thickness, its about having re-designed your product such that it now looks a lot like the iPad (the others don't and saying the do beyond the basic shape, which isn't the point here, is intellectually dishonest), sold in a box like the iPad with a custom UI on top of Android that mimics iOS, is. Moto made the Xoom, HTC made the Flyer, BN made the nook -- none of these have these combined issues that lead to this lawsuit.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Did Apple Doctor Evidence in Samsung Patent Suit?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
You are tossing out the entire point of the complaint and focusing on the section that's required to be a bare bones description. The new Tab looks a lot like the iPad. If they were turned off and you just saw the face of it or if they were turned on and you just saw the App Drawer open on the Tab, regular Joe users would be confused as to which is which, same goes for the box at first glance, before you read the words, same goes for the obvious homage of the icons in TouchWiz, so much so that Samsung is killing it off, the box design and tray setup in the way that it's being done here wasn't really done before Apple did it. It's not whether someone walks out of the store with it instead because they think are convinced it IS an iPad, it's that enough elements are alarmingly samey that it violates Trademark and or Trade Dress law. Samsung is trying to say, "Hey, you hate Apple without regard to logic, stop posting on the [H] forums for a sec and buy this because it's close enough to an iPad that you'll like it without having to buy from Apple!". Box: No tabs (no pun intended), no fold overs, a bottom with a tray underneath which the cords and manuals stacked and on top of that a plastic tray cradling the device and a top slightly larger that comes down over it. Together these things point to copying, as does the new design announced as a direct response to the iPad2. It's not about thickness, its about having re-designed your product such that it now looks a lot like the iPad (the others don't and saying the do beyond the basic shape, which isn't the point here, is intellectually dishonest), sold in a box like the iPad with a custom UI on top of Android that mimics iOS, is. Moto made the Xoom, HTC made the Flyer, BN made the nook -- none of these have these combined issues that lead to this lawsuit.
WTS iPad : $499
FAQ:
Q) How do I know this is a real iPad? It is so hard to tell these days!
A) You know because it has a white box, four rounded edges, icons, and a touch screen. Who else would dare design such a device?
The nook has that wacky corner thing, making it very unique, it also does not have a metal outer bevel, doesn't have a pane of glass covering the entire front and has a plastic bevel that comes up above the plane of the screen. I had one until recently (yay, xda-devs
) and the device, the OS and the boxing are not like the iPads.For the boxing, I should say not enough like to cause any issues.
Have you looked at the unboxing vids or opened one yourself?
Tab 10.1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE_J0KCDK10
iPad2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWgyJv_JrA
Yes, I just said that to cause someone to spaz out
Here's the unboxing for the nook color (great little device for those wanting a cheap Android Tablet, you can run pure-ish Froyo or Honeycomb off of a microSD card or off the main ROM if you use Clockwork to hack it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbvpVvGAlBc
Yes, but me not being retarded, can still clearly tell them apart. Even side-by-side with the screens off. They look different.
You are missing the entire point, what is Apple actually complaining about? To copy something means to make a copy of it. They are clearly not copies. This is as ridiculous as two calculator companies suing each other because they both use a grid layout for the keys. Or two hatchback cars. You say only that one tab looks like an iPad? They all look the same based on Apple's own description. Apple can't have it both ways, either they are all similar or not. THEY ARE ALL SIMILAR. But they are not copies. None of that stuff you mentioned above affects ANYTHING in real life. You claim that regular Joe users would only mistake these two products. If Joe user is truly that dumb, then they are in trouble because they all share the same design because THAT'S THE STANDARD DESIGN (which existed before the iPad).
Apple is just working the system for money and attacking their competition the only way they can, plain and simple.
The nook has that wacky corner thing, making it very unique, it also does not have a metal outer bevel, doesn't have a pane of glass covering the entire front and has a plastic bevel that comes up above the plane of the screen. I had one until recently (yay, xda-devs
I've had numerous people ask if it was an iPad, so I guess you're wrong! The same with my original Galaxy Tab and now with my HTC View tablet. Everyone asks if they are iPads. So not only does Apple literally have nothing to worry about, their litigation cannot change how dumb people are so it's pointless UNLESS they just want to screw their competition. Hmm could that be it? Yep.
No one would be stupid enough to make an EXACT duplicate. You say they all look the same based on Apple's description, but the nook and the XOOM don't actually match Apple's description. They are all similar, sure, but the extent to which they are similar in combination with similar packagin, similar UI layer etc leads to a charge that the court sees as having merit. The SPECIFIC design elements called out are not common to all tablets. Apple already makes 66% of the profit in mobile phones and 21x the profit of all other tablets combined. You don't bother suing people from that position unless there is grounds as their clearly is with Samsung's recent designs.
There's a difference between people being dumb and a violation of trademark and trade dress. The nook is obviously not an iPad to people familiar with tablets, the Tab is confusingly similar. Also confusing the issue is that people call a category of product by the brand name of the dominant player in that market - Kleenex for tissues, iPad for tablet, Coke for cola, etc.
The courts would throw out a suit that had no grounds (better product), which they have not done. Using Honeycomb would disabuse most people of that notion anyhow
The courts are hardly a benchmark for intelligence when it comes to technology, we all know this. It's up to technology companies to be responsible about their litigation and not just waste everyones time and money, OR use it as a tool to squish competition unfairly (anyone remember A3D?).
Guess how many of these tablets have white boxes? Guess how much it matters? (It doesn't)
OHGOD everyone sue everyone they all are basically 95% the same, just like cars and literally every other type of anything! A design standard was established a long time ago, before the iPad. Apple doesn't get to own an idea just because they helped make it more popular. That's what this is about, well that and Apple is a shit company.
ShadowStriker
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,669
Damn dude, that looks like this... They call them windows.I think the real issue here is that this is all about apple's registered design of this
Does no one else see this whole thing as a joke?
The rest of the pictures and further details on this registered design are here take a look if you want a good laugh.
That qualification leaves you with few places to go
Most companies behave like greedy children As far as the courts, there are very specific rules that they have to follow with this kind of stuff and they end up being moved to or filed with districts that are knowledgable in this type of stuff. Whether you like or agree with the courts or not, they have a set of rules they have to follow that doesn't lead to random wackiness.Again, it's not about 'white box' or 'rectangle' -- go back upthread and read Nilay Patel's breakdown of some of this from ThisIsMyNext.com and you pretty much have to see that the combination of things that Samsung is doing is on dangerous ground as far as Trakemark and Trade Dress.
Go read the full document and Nilay Patel's breakdown of it -- oversimplification after reading 5 lines of the complaint gives the wrong impression.
The breakdown changes nothing, Apple doesn't own any aspect of any part of that breakdown and if you total them all up it doesn't actually change reality in any way. People don't say "Well I was going to buy a Galaxy Tab, but then I realized it wasn't placed just so in it's box like the iPad is" or "I was going to buy an iPad but HOLY SHIT the Galaxy tab also has rounded edges and a back part!!!!!" It's like when your kids tell you a straight up lie that they think is totally believable, except no parent would believe such crap. Apple is trying to tell the courts that their product is in jeopardy over this, and only an idiot would believe that because their product is just like everyone else's. Not the other way around. They had the first really popular one, but they didn't create the tablet segment nor can they own it. Stop and think about what a trademark is:
Sorry, you should've made your iPad a triangle then. Your mistake Apple.
If I want to box up my products a certain way, make them look similar to all the other standardized products in the market, and advertise them without stealing any marketing, then I can do it because fuck you I'm an American!
Sorry, you should've made your iPad a triangle then. Your mistake Apple.
If I want to box up my products a certain way, make them look similar to all the other standardized products in the market, and advertise them without stealing any marketing, then I can do it because fuck you I'm an American!
And to use your handy site to make the overall point:
Basically if Samsung loses this it's because they have the shittiest lawyers on the planet, not because there is an actual case. Anyone that can stand there and be confused about what they are buying isn't fit to be called "intelligent life."
Basically if Samsung loses this it's because they have the shittiest lawyers on the planet, not because there is an actual case. Anyone that can stand there and be confused about what they are buying isn't fit to be called "intelligent life."
The lawyers on both sides and the judge and the American Civil Code disagree with you
The lawyers on both sides and the judge and the American Civil Code disagree with you
Which is to say, we can't solv3e all the worlds problems on a message board, let's go have a beer
RIP WebOS
Pretty sad
Wonder what the chances are of a disgruntled Android ODM working with it.Pretty sad
One can only hope that Google with license/buy WebOS from HP and use it instead of Android. Speaking as a professional Android developer here
It should offer far more of a counterweight against iOS than Android, even at 3.2, can. I want my OpenAL, darnit.