Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia 159
New submitter harmic writes "The Australian Federal High Court has denied Apple's appeal against the earlier decision that overturned the ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. The Samsung Android based tablets should be in the shops in a matter of days. Apple had attempted to appeal an earlier court ruling overturning the ban."
What an appalling title (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple loses appeal to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia" - beyond your abilities to write that?
Appalling title.
Re:What an appalling title (Score:5, Insightful)
How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.
You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.
Re:What an appalling title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I did, but then again I'd read the story in another feed long before /. picked up on it...
Re: (Score:2)
I read it for what it was, but then, I suppose I was aware of the legal tussle in Australia between Samsung and Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep that Apple may hurt a bit when someone pulls it out of your behind.
Try to relax more, it won't hurt as much.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people would not expect apple to have chosen to battle in court, rather than competing in the marketplace on the merit of their products.
This was a battle (chosen by apple), it was about tablets, it was in Australia, and they did lose. The title, although admittedly ambiguous, is hardly mis-leading.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends.
It depends on just how well informed you are about tablets and the shenanigans surrounding them. If you aren't living in a cave and actively avoiding hearing about this stuff, it's pretty clear what the headline meant.
If you are on Slashdot, you should not be quite so ignorant as to be confused by the headline.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.
You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.
It's not nitpicking as the actual infringement case is yet to be heard. This judgement only had to do with the injunction against Samsung.
The case to decide if Samsung has infringed on anything is going to be heard next year. In the mean time, Samsung can sell their tablet on the open market.
This does restore some confidence in the Aussie legal system though. I think Justice Bennett needs to keep her head down as her ruling was overruled by both three Federal Court judges then a High Court judge. Also
Re: (Score:2)
They lost a battle - the injunction battle. Not the war.
As I said, accurate description.
Re: (Score:3)
pedantry back at you (Score:2)
They may have lost the battle, but they can still win the war!
Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Informative)
I'm surprised I've not seen this posted yet, but a few days ago Apple lost control of the iPad trademark in China after a dispute.
http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-loses-trademark-in-china-no-longer-called-ipad-41378/ [macworld.com.au]
Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Informative)
That's interesting. Shenzhen trademarks the iPad back in 2000, then Apple launches the iPad in 2010 and promptly tries to sue Shenzhen for trademark infringement. Apple now cannot even call their tablet the iPad in one of the world's largest markets China. Their wildly illogical lawsuits, turning them into one of the world's most hated companies, are really starting to backfire everywhere.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Apple has lost a trademark dispute in China....
As a result Apple may have to sell the iPad under a new name in China or pay up to $1.6 billion and purchase the trademark from a Chinese tech firm
Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Informative)
Article detailing the lawsuit here [reuters.com]. Apple did, in fact, sue the local business asserting a stronger claim to the trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Funny)
There's nothing wrong with their being gay, but increasingly they are changing from the cool, Neil Patrick Harris/John Barrowman kind of gay into the evil Saddam Hussein/Satan kind of gay.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006. That's what is up for grabs here.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2011-12/09/c_131297760.htm [xinhuanet.com]
Plus never mind they have no product named, "iPad" either.
I could name dozens of companies that are more hated in this world than apple. Xe, Halliburton, BP, News Corp, etc.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that it's universal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Informative)
The city of Shenzhen never held the iPad trademark. Proview Technology (Taipei) sold the trademark that they held in a number of countries, but Proview Technology (Shenzhen) chose to hold onto the trademark in China.
Re: (Score:1)
Edit: Found it on wikipedia Linksys iPhone [wikipedia.org] it was created by InfoGear in '98.
Re: (Score:3)
Old news.
Cisco used the 'iPhone' trademark before Apple: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/ciscoapple-the-dog-that-did-not-bark-in-the-night/239?tag=content;siu-container [zdnet.com]
You link to proof that Cisco didn't use much (Score:2)
In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for reminding me about this IOS nonsense.
What lame excuses are you going to try there?
iPhone trademark was fraud on Cisco's part (Score:2)
Perjury, fraud upon the USPTO. ILLEGAL. Cisco hadn't used the trademark for years until Apple showed up asking about using the name (yes, Apple asked first), then Cisco swore upon penalty of perjury to the USPTO that it had been using it in order to renew it, and even slapped an iPhone sticker on a Linksys VOIP phone retail box as their the required evidence that a Cisco iPhone product was out in the market (which it wasn't). Cisco's lucky their trademark attorney wasn't disbarred.
Apple iOS is not an operat
Re: (Score:2)
In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.
Cisco owns both the iPhone and iOS trademarks, and has licensed both of them [1,2] to Apple. No one is fraudulent or infringing in this case.
[1] http://betanews.com/2007/01/09/cisco-offers-to-license-iphone-name-to-apple/ [betanews.com]
[2] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/08/cisco_licenses_ios_name_to_apple_screenshot_shows_iwork_on_iphone.html [appleinsider.com]
Apple owns a wide variety of iPhone trademarks (Score:2)
Cisco has one, the one they got from Infogear. Timeline:
The trademark was awarded to Infogear in 1999, Cisco bought them in 2000, and sold its last "iPhone" product before this matter in 2001.
The trademark was up for renewal on 11/16/2005, and Cisco didn't bother, having abandoned the mark. But there is a six month grace period.
Then in mid 2006 Apple came to Cisco asking about using it with an Apple phone that was to be announced in early 2007.
Cisco immediately used the grace period to renew the trademark t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You forgot a pretty important fact...
from here [theepochtimes.com]
Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (Score:5, Informative)
The "fact" as quoted is incorrect, as Proview (the company) sold its rights to another company, which sold them on to Apple in 2009.
Probably the other company didn't care that their deal excluded China as they had no intention of doing business there, and when Apple bought it, they mistakenly believed they were buying the rights for the whole world, because the company name of the holder recorded for China matched the previous owner of the trademark they were buying apart from the city in which the company was based.
Re: (Score:2)
turning them into one of the world's most hated companies.
Careful. Sometimes when you stretch something too much, it snaps back and stings you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that used to work back when Slashdot was more of a hobby-run project by Taco etc, but lets face it - Firehose just plain doesn't work with not enough people raising the decent stories out of the shit, and story submissions have become much more about ad views and referrals than community desires.
Re: (Score:2)
I submitted the story, as I'm sure many others did as well. It's like there's some conspiracy trying to keep it quiet. Hell, I found out about it on a thread on crackberry.com's forums that was locked almost immediately (another thread on the subject was deleted within minutes).
It's an interesting story. Why the internet seems terrified of discussing it is beyond me.
denied with costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Googling it returns this news story, does it mean Apple will have to pay Samsungs legal costs or even what Samsung is going to claim they have lost because of it?
Apple case isn't looking good, they are getting thrown out all over the world and the small wins are for trivial stuff Samsung can and has worked around. Meanwhile Apples reputation has taken a nosedive not being helped that Jobs epitaph seems to consist of "prick in a turtleneck". Screwing your partner out of a few hundred when he will one day make you a billionaire is just sad.
I still wonder what Apple was thinking. Yes, the Samsung tablets and for that matter anyone elses look a lot alike. And? I tried it at a local super store. Gosh, they are indeed very similar. Then I wandered over the washing machine department. Talk about copy cats. Really, take a LOOK someday, they are ALL the same. Even the place you the soap in. I couldn't find a single model on display where the soap didn't go in on the left. Even the order of pre-wash, wash and fabric softener is like that, from left to right.
And don't even get me started on fridges. white boxes the lot of them. About the only exception are the american models which ALL have the water dispenser in the LEFT door which is narrower then the right door.
So maybe Apple was the first to copy the design from a prop maker. Was it worth it Apple? We who are not fanboys now have fresh ammo to slap your buyers around with now that the one-mouse button joke has gotten a bit stale (mind you, tablets do have only one mouse button... old jokes never die it seems, they just get re-used on slashdot). Injunctions thrown out, might have to pay whatever Samsung is going to claim as damages and you made a Korean mega-corp many times larger and closely tied to a not-so-democratic regime that has taken thousands up on thousands of western job as the sympathetic underdog.
Maybe here is a hint for Apple, next time the lawyers suggest a strategy. Hit them!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:denied with costs? (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.
Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.
Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.
Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.
Re:denied with costs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009 [techcrunch.com]. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to -- I would assert in public that Apple most likely copied the JooJoo, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009 [techcrunch.com]. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to
Things like a flat surface? Where is it? Do you guys still not understand how design patents work?
Re: (Score:2)
Things like a flat surface? Where is it? Do you guys still not understand how design patents work?
We do, actually. We think they're about as valid as software patents -- probably less, actually.
--Jeremy
Ahh, so that's why almost nobody complained about them for over one and a half centuries - because they are actually less valid than software patents. That must mean software patents will last longer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue?
Of course it looks nothing like an iPad, because iPads didn't exist when this prototype was displayed. iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible. It was only after it was publicly demoed that Apple announced the iPad with se
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue? ... iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible.
iPad doesn't have no buttons on the front, it has one. The iPad doesn't have a bezel, this does. The iPad has a flat front, this one is curved (you can see it better on the rear grey device as it's at an angle). The iPad has wide borders around the screen on all four sides to give somewhere to grip without gripping the touch sensitive screen, this device doesn't. And most obviously the iPad is black, this device is red.
In the final release, Joojoo was changed in all these factors apart from the single butto
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel? And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel? We obviously need to talk about technology.
See, there were two companies. One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release. The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch. Yet you seem to think it's more likely that the first compan
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, so, the iPad doesn't have a bezel, it just has something exactly like a bezel?
I'm not sure you understand what a bezel is. It's not the same thing as a border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezel_setting [wikipedia.org]
Maybe if I say raised bezel, then we can communicate with clarity.
And to claim that device is "curved" is ridiculous. Are you talking about the protrusion of the bezel?
At that point I was talking about the curve away from the place of the screen. Though I did also refer to the fact that that picture of a Joojoo had a raised bezel and iPad doesn't have one.
One innovated a product over the course of years with public prototypes culminating in a release.
Well pictures of designs anyway.
The other company demoed a derivative product two months before the first one's launch.
iPad wasn't derivative. Joojoo in it's final incarnation was, as demonstrated by your picture and min
Re: (Score:2)
(Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)
Oh, I haven't heard this one. Go ahead, I could do with a laugh.
Altering the aspect ratio of images in legal documents to make differently shaped objects look like the Apple devices I believe is what he's referring to. And what do you mean it doesn't have a bezel. What do you call that area around the screen?
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you mean it doesn't have a bezel. What do you call that area around the screen?
A bezel is a component that retains a glass face, such as the raised metal component around the glass of a watch. On the iPad, the inactive glass area surrounding the area which has the screen isn't a bezel. Looking at the iPad2, the glass is ground away at an angle at it's edge, and the aluminium back does look like it might overlap that. But it's not retaining it because it's one piece with the back, and there would be no way of assembling it. In reality, the screen is glued, not retained by a bezel.
Yeah,
Re: (Score:2)
The important thing is not what you call it. It's the physical difference between s device with a completely flat front, and one with a raised structure surrounding the screen. It makes all the difference to gestures that might be near the edge.
Re: (Score:1)
Why compare announce dates to release dates? (Score:2)
Are you trying to distort the truth?
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
Why compare announce dates to release dates? Are you trying to distort the truth?
That was my question of the GP poster. It was he that did it, not I.
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
Which I pointed out before you did. What I also pointed out and you missed is that the final exterior look of the Joojoo only came after the iPad had been demoed.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to distort the truth?
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
But long after the rumors about an Apple Tablet started. Not top mention that iOS started on a tablet [engadget.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, another form of the "Apple invented everything!" fanboi argument.
--Jeremy
As opposed to your "Apple never invented anything" hateboi argument?
Re: (Score:2)
There might be two reasons for that:
There are no patents on those form factors;
They already expired;
Or maybe back in the day when that was invented they didn't allow patenting simply on general ideas on how a device should look.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that the patents expired. Domestic applianced used to come in all sorts of shapes, with the words "patented" and "pat-pending" sprinkled liberally about. But once something's been around for 20 years, it's open for everyone to adopt, and the entire market converges around the designs of the popular models.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing design patents and utility patents. Patents that cover the external appearance of a device are design patents, not utility patents.
(Design patents must be on non-utilitarian aspects of a design. Given that thinness, bezels, and rounded corners are utilitarian, Apple's design patents don't have a chance in hell to stand up to any serious legal challenge.)
Re:denied with costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates
It wasn't that patenting wasn't allowed, it was just that nobody really understood how generic and obvious patents would be treated in the future. If I could time travel to 1995, I could tell myself to patent connecting a GPS receiver to a laptop and having it query a database running on a secondary server. That would now be called mobile geolocation services, and the patent would be worth billions of dollars. Similarly, at some point in the 90s, I had the idea of transferring executable objects as part of a client/server display. That would now be called a web applet, and again the patent would be worth billions.. If I had only known that adding the suffixes "on the web" or "on a mobile device" was a valid way to create new patents, then I would have patented "telephony... on [the web/mobile device]", "video... on [the web/mobile device]", "instant messaging... on [the web/mobile device]". But, back then, who knew that the system would turn out to be so crazy?!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Err, no, "X, but ON THE INTERNET" criticisms are directed on base claims of those patents, like "drag-n-drop slider changing program state on reaching one of the ends, but on a touchscreen" [uspto.gov]
Re:denied with costs? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the potential of lost sales during those 2 months?
Not until the actual infringement case is over. That case hasn't been heard yet and will be heard early next year.
If Apple loses the infringement case, they are not only liable for Samsung's legal costs but also
Re: (Score:2)
What about the potential of lost sales during those 2 months?
Not until the actual infringement case is over. That case hasn't been heard yet and will be heard early next year.
If Apple loses the infringement case, they are not only liable for Samsung's legal costs but also can be sued for the estimated loss of revenue whilst there was an injunction. Both the legal costs and loss of revenue will be hotly debated by Samsung, Apple and the judges. It will get messy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would be funny if (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would be funny if (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be even more funny if that happened after Apple had been made to pay for millions in lost sales caused by the ban they requested.
Re: (Score:1)
It would still be a drop in the bucket compared to iPad sales, and Apple would put it down to a cost of doing business.
If Samsung had lost then they'd just have to use some that unspent R&D budget to pay the fines, and deduct the lost sales in Australia from it.
Due to the lack of any sense of humour in slashdot moderators, the previous sentence was A JOKE.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I wan an unapologetic fanboi, or is all that's required for that definition to apply is to not be spouting vehement Apple hate at every opportunity?
I personally think Apple is being an idiot over several of the lawsuits it is involved in. In other areas I agree with them.
I own Apple products, but have plenty of criticisms of them, as well as plenty of praise. I don't own an Android-based device, but I have used several and have both praise and criticism for them.
The sad fact that has befallen slash
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple box is marked up over 100%? I'm very curious.
Also, my Linux box cost more than my Apple box. So, the Linux box must have been marked up more than 100% too? I'm so confused! It must be my sheeple brain! (DISCLAIMER: I am aware of the presence of the word "usually" in your comment, but I am going for a touch of facetiousness here to keep it light).
And they didn't sue HTC over hardware design and interface style, there was a lawsuit involving a specific touch patent. There was nothing about design
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wastes a gazillion dollars trying to get the Galaxy tablet banned, and fail... only to find out later that Samsung kills the product themselves due to slow sales, a la HP Touchpad and RIM whatever
In that case, as long as Apple have already done enough to postpone the Touchpad-esque below-cost firesale until after Christmas, or maybe even until the iPad 3 appears, they can probably chalk up a net win.
not funny at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Given how fast the Android market is evolving, Samsung only had a few months to make a profit on the 10.1. Apple killed that window of opportunity with their injunction. Now, newer and better tablets are already out.
Apple lost the case but they hurt Samsung badly. Apple should be made to pay for the harm they did to Samsung. And Apple may have opened themselves up to similar claims against them in the future, as other companies will now start to take out silly design patents as well and use them against Apple product launches.
Tough break Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you'll have to compete on quality product attributes now like features, support and other factors... You know... Fairly...
Or maybe you still don't get it.
Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Lisa & Mac were total ripoffs of the stuff Jobs saw at Parc. How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves? Does being (allegedly) "cool" somehow make hypocrisy ok?
Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
Nice rewrite of history.
Apple paid for the use of Parc's innovations. They later had "seller's remorse" when they decided they should have asked Apple for more than what they got, but in classic style they didn't see the value in what they had, but felt entitled to try and change the terms of the deal afterwards.
There was no "ripping off" of Parc technology - it was all shared in exchange for money/shares/compensation.
Its not me rewriting history (Score:2)
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
Re:Its not me rewriting history (Score:5, Informative)
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry , which bit of the fact that Xerox PAID Apple money, not the other way around, and allowed apples engineers to use their ideas are you having trouble grasping?
FFS, is this idiot week? (Score:3)
The shares cost Apple NOTHING to hand over. And for that NOTHING they got *paid* AND got access to Xerox's research! Whether the shares would be worth a billion by now is irrelevant, they still cost apple NOTHING.
It was a typical Jobs style business deal:
"You give me money and access to all your research and I'll give you this bit of paper which might or might not be worth something in the future".
Re: (Score:3)
The shares cost Apple NOTHING to hand over.
Do you understand how shares work? They are a percentage of the company. Every percentage you give away is less you own yourself. You said Jobs stole from Xerox, but the facts are Xerox willingly entered a business deal. That Xerox couldn't profit from their own technology and gave the store away is their fault.
Xerox FAIL, Apple Win. Fair play. (Score:2)
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
For fsck's sake - we're talking about Xerox here, not some naive Mom & Pop corner shop that the slick businessmen from Apple could con into selling their shop for a handful of shiny beads. An outfit like Xerox should have the nous to check whether oil had been discovered on the site or the new interstate was likely to be built next door. Xerox willingly did a deal with Apple, and they're big enough and ugly enough to eat the consequences. Fair play to Apple.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions. Xerox were certainly led by typical BA type know nothing donkeys but that doesn't make Apples behaviour right or the hypocrisy any less.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions.
ah, you are indeed being intentionally dense, my friend. As others pointed out, the deal struck between Xerox and Apple used discounted Apple shares as compensation. The stigma you are attempting to attach to the deal just isn't there. And Apple innovated far more than they borrowed. You're view of this history is, quite simply, entirely inaccurate. To put it another way, what you believe is not the truth. [folklore.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They traded it for stock in Apple, that Xerox were foolish enough to sell on before it became really valuable - like I said, they didn't see Apple or the GUI going anywhere, it was more a curiosity to them.
If they'd kept hold of the shares they "kindly" received in exchange for their tech they'd have to worry about buying one of those really big safes that can hold a billion in $100's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Group think: if you talk to Apple employees, they really firmly believe that Apple invented it all. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field also applied to himself, as you can see from his over-the-top remarks on a "thermonuclear war on Android" (ironic given how much iPhone rips off from the people who created Android).
And it's self-reinforcing because they keep getting away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell, are you trying to be sarcastic or funny?
For the record, Android did not rip off iOS. iOS ripped off Danger, Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, and a bunch of others. The AppStore, desktop sync for media and PIM data, the launcher, iCloud, notification bars, error correcting touch screen keyboards, mobile web browsin
Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
"PARC was a ripoff of Engelbart's demo at SRI. "
Englebert didn't invent the GUI and his demo didn't have one. Just the mouse. Which is hardware, not software.
No idea. I don't know anything about that demo.
"Linux is a ripoff of UNIX."
Thats exactly what it is and its the reason I use it.
"GNOME is a ripoff of Windows."
Pretty much. So is KDE.
"Nearly everything in computing is an incremental improvement from something else"
There's incremental improvement and then there's direct copying. Its not the same.
"Apple massively improved the desktop metaphor with the Lisa and Mac."
Did they? Have you seen any Xerox Star demos? They're on youtube if you're interetsed.
"WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE."
NO THEY DIDN'T. Xerox *PAID* apple to buy apple stock. BIG difference.
"This historical rewriting that occurs amongst Apple-haters"
Ah , you're a fanboi. That explains the blinkers.
"It paints you as a blinded zealot."
Now there's a nice bit of irony. Perhaps the turtleneck is too tight and is cutting off blood to your brain so you can't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they? Have you seen any Xerox Star demos? They're on youtube if you're interetsed.
I _have_ seen an Apple Lisa and a Xerox Star running side by side on CeBit around 1983, and considering the Xerox Star sold for about five times as much, it wasn't even funny how badly it was beaten.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.
uh... no, rather to a much greater and obvious extent. Star was nothing like Mac or Lisa. Every single tablet device announced or released since iPad's release is nearly identical to iPad, mimicking hw and user interface.
All this sillyness... (Score:4, Interesting)
IS caused by the Patent system.
Honestly, all it does is stifle creativity. I made a square, you cant make a square too!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news, atheism is a religion and baldness is a hairdo.
Well, if my employer tried to fire me just because I was an atheist I'd expect to be protected by the same laws that (in many countries) say you can't fire someone for being a Muslim or a Christian.
...and if someone made a TV show featuring a bald starship captain with a French name and a Yorkshire accent, or a bald maverick cop who ate lolipops, they'd probably be, at leased, accused of unoriginality.
In other news, ISTR John Cage sucessfully forced Mike Batt to settle [bbc.co.uk] over his 4 minutes and 33 seconds of
Re: (Score:2)
So the answer is , to file a patent, you send the actual device. if someone else makes an identical device, then they get smacked.
Problem solved, no more of this BS vague drawings on paper patents.
Misleading headline - not a total loss (Score:2)
Really, injunctions are - and should be - rare. This was not unexpected, and really doesn't affect the infringement suit much.
Samsung Loses Phone Battle in France, Italy Next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was expected though, it was a nothing to lose shot from Samsung.
Enjoy your Striesand Effect, Apple (Score:3)
Look, Sheila, that's one of those Samsung doodads that's so good that Apple tried to have it banned.
You can't buy that kind of publicity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Over in France (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's Florian, and yes - he is a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Florian Muller unapologetically pushes his agenda, and makes no attempt to be fair and unbiased. Which wouldn't be an issue if his views weren't so widely aired, because he is a self proclaimed expert who sends his blog entries to hundreds of media outlets and websites.
Some examples of how he bends the truth: http://twitter.com/#!/FLOGSPatents [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid like the legal warfare shenanigans between idevice companies. And the companies themselves.