Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus 217
It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal in response to the injunction granted to Apple against the Galaxy Nexus phone in the U.S.. From the article: "The motion, filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeks a stay of the injunction for the duration of the appeal.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents. The injunction, which would keep the Samsung device from being sold in stores in the U.S., can go into effect as soon as Apple posts a bond of nearly $96 million."
Injunction (Score:4)
Injunction terms are too narrow. Can't we have an injunction against patent related douchbaggery?
Re:Injunction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Injunction (Score:5, Insightful)
They can probably round up that kind of cash by digging in their couch cushions. I'm sure the appeal was expected, and they'll probably wait to see how it pans out before proceeding. The fact that they haven't posted the bond yet does suggest they think the injunction has a chance of being successfully appealed
When you're dealing with companies of this size, an injunction really doesn't mean much until it's withstood at least one appeal.
Re:Injunction (Score:5, Interesting)
90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole) should start at a 1-2 billion dollars and go up. That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
and how many companies have this kind of cash? if you're a small start up and sue a big huge megacorp for abusing some cool tech you made up you can win in court and still lose the war
see the japanese takeover of the consumer electronics in the 1980's
Re:Injunction (Score:4, Interesting)
Bonds are set by the financial harm the defendant would suffer by the injunction. It makes no sense to have some minimum number, as harm could be well below that.
Let's say you have the reasonable potential to make $1 million on your widgets this year. Some guy gets an injunction, posts a bond, you win. You then show the court your losses, and that is paid out of the bond. Why have a billion dollar bond in cases such as this? You think to discourage such cases? Bonds are equitable, not punitive.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they figure the financial harm, but I do hope it includes legal fees and some workable formula for intangible damages (beyond lost sales over the previous month).
Being nobody important, I can only shudder at the thought of a company like Apple having your widget spuriously pulled from market for even a month. I imagine the damages would exceed the number of units you sold in a prior month.
Re: (Score:2)
90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole)...
From the summary: "U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents."
This has nothing to do with the ITC. This was in federal court in the Northern District of California.
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.
Yeah, because the adversarial court system, jurisprudence, the rule of law and legitimate decisions of the Court just isn't enough for the discriminating slashdotter.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a judge supposed to decide if it's bogus before the injunction is granted?
I like this (Score:5, Funny)
It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal
I think that more supposed news stories should begin "this is not news".
This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love apple products, but this is becoming disgusting. I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS except for where it uses icons, and you use your fingers, and it runs apps.
The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.
1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?
2 - Our patent system is so broken that it's proving to anyone that has a brain that it is causing a strangulation effect. A little guy in his garage has ZERO chance of creating anything without being gunned down in court by a rich company afraid of competition.
The sad part is that we cant change it. No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators that are there to do what the industry tells them to do instead of doing what is right.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC, but of course it isn't. The lack of knowledge and corruption is rife throughout the entire system right now.
I posted on the previous article about this that Google should step up and take the lead and use it as a concrete example for congresscritters since they are the ones with enough money to actually make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC,
It is. It's the money alarm. They're looking forward to being able to steal some from someone.
Re: (Score:2)
it'll only ring alarm bells when the damn pols quit making money from it or people get so disgusted they start shooting them. Once that happens the damn pols are screwed because their corporate overlords sure as hell wont protect them.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who paid off who? What universe do you live in?
Go read up about the U.S. lobbying system. It might open your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough. Planet Money did a great piece on it.
This isn't the result of Congressional lobbying. This is the result of actions taken by the Judiciary. Now if you want to accuse the Judge as being paid off, you're REALLY making a HUGE accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been *nothing* I've written that has talked about the judge in this case. We aren't dealing with judicial corruption.
The reason the laws are the patent system are the way they are now is because big money wants it that way. The "patent reform" act last year made the situation worse. Why do you think it got pushed through? Because it was paid for. That is the only way things happen in this congress. There is no sense of the common good whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence this is what "big money" wants? Do you have documents from groups like ALEC or the the US Chamber of Commerce showing that this is what they want?
Just blindly throwing out that OMG BOUGHT AND PAID FOR doesn't exactly mean proof. What proof do you have? I need evidence, not innuendo and conspiratorial thinking.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.
There is 1 legal hurdle samsung has to clear in order to remove the injunction and that is deceiving the end user by introducing a product into the market that would confuse them to buy their product. It's not a hard hurdle for samsung to bound over and I'm certain they will.
If there are other infringing patients like you say, I'd say pulling the product would be moot, how would Apple file for damages if the product is pulled? R
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
This could actually just be a case of judicial 'fanboi' bias. You see it even more in the news media and TV fields, where the poor downtrodden minority that had been using Macs for years now have the opportunity to spread the gospel.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're apparently saying that instead of the lobbyists offering bribes to the politicians to do something, the politicians are actively extorting money from the lobbyists or they won't do what the lobbyists want.
And apparently this means that the system is less corrupt because the lobbyists have their integrity intact?
And to think I was worried for a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they're making a value judgement with zero perspective from a privileged point of view.
One that happens to be factually wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's factually wrong show contradicting facts. Or shut up.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence?
He's not alleging anything. He's describing systemic corruption, not some incident specific to this case. U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy, rather than the electorate. This means that without some lobby with money, there's no reason to change the status quo, unless it's an election year, or it's something that's really riling large segments of the population.
Why do you think there's so much movement behind "piracy", and so little behind patent reform? Because there's a lobby splashing money around for copyright reform, whereas all the guys with money have already bought into the patent system.
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption.
Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call.
The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.
The corruption in the US occurs at high levels of power. It doesn't happen as much at the local level, as you might see, say, in many South American countries, where bribes to local officials are par for the course. For examples, google the three words "industry", "written", and "legislation" in a single search. For me, the among the top matches are "Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws" and "Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in
Re: (Score:2)
1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present. Under your system, it's more like Judge Judy or The People's Court. Which isn't exactly legally fair if the Judge is biased one way or another.
2 - Agreed, but we CAN change it. It does matter who gets elected to congress.
First off, you have no idea how the buying and selling of senators even happens, do you? Give this a liste [thisamericanlife.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct, especially with regard to a legal education. Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense is neither common nor sensible.
We're talking matters of law here. The Judge needs to weigh ALL evidence regardless of personal biases here. That's how our legal system works.
This isn't disingenuous rationalization we're talking about. This is the foundation for a fair and free legal system. If you really think this isn't working, the alternative is MUCH worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges need to know how the law works, not be pre-biased on the case.
I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges need to understand the law and it's the litigators who are responsible for educating the judges and juries on cases is simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Why can't the litigators be responsible for educating them about both law and fact? Conversely, why should they not be educated on matters of both law and fact?
Attorneys do, in fact, brief the court about matters of
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The defense lawyer's job is to point out that they aren't.
They're more like the license plates on rental cars or seat numbers at the theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the case should be focused on determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence that the defendant violated the law, and most cases against a John Doe based solely on an IP address should be dismissed immediately based on that criterion. It shouldn't hinge on which side's lesson in network infrastructure resonates better with a technology-ignorant judge.
Re: (Score:3)
John Doe has a defense lawyer?
Re: (Score:3)
1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present.
If judges are not sufficiently educated how are they going to be able to discriminate the facts from the bullshit the attorneys are spouting?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that engineers almost never take a stand and just keep on doing what management tells them to do, as long as the money keeps flowing in. Basically, we're just prostituting ourselves. And that makes Apple probably the filthiest brothel on the planet, and also the most expensive one.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and to be fair, Google engineers are essentially a bunch of voyeurs, but that's a different story.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking a stand doesn't pay the mortgage.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then don't get a mortgage.
Lucy Koh (Score:2, Interesting)
She may perhaps privately think that Apple will lose, but again the more publicly it loses, and the more expensively, the better.
The message of the cas
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators
It's not that bad. There are only 100 senators.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case...
No matter who gets elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 100 to 0 by the bought and paid for senators.
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?
Just because you don't like the ruling doesn't mean the judge doesn't understand technology. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Koh spent a decade doing patent litigation.
Tellingly, when Judge Koh has decided the other way in the past - invalidating patents or denying injunctions - Slashdot posters have repeatedly said, "finally, a judge that understands technology!"
Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score:5, Informative)
This case is quite a bit different.
1 - Generally true, but this is mainly about design patents, not a very technical issue, more akin to trademark and copyright. If one looks like the other, and consumer confusion could result, there's likely infringement.
2 - This is big guy vs. big guy. One big guy thinks the other is copying. If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious, down to the packaging and the design of the AC charger.
This injunction goes along very fair rules. Apple has to show the judge their potential harm if Samsung continues to copy, and Samsung has to show the judge their potential harm if their sales are stopped. In a patent case, Samsung raising serious questions of patent validity will also tip the balance in their favor. Samsung has apparently failed to do this for all of the patents.
In the end, the court found that Apple would suffer more harm from continued infringement than Samsung would suffer from a wrongful injunction. But to make sure Samsung doesn't get screwed, Apple has to post a bond covering any potential Samsung losses.
How much more fair can this be?
Re: (Score:2)
If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious
If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung goes much further, which is probably why they attracted Apple's ire. As I said, packaging and even the AC adapter changed to copy Apple. Their little stores copied the layout and design of Apple stores. They even screwed up and put Apple App Store icons on the walls of their stores where they advertised apps available for their Android products. Their connection port even looks almost exa
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.
Your entire comment underlines major flaws in your reasoning.
1) you list two "flaws" ... two is more than one... that is, plural... thus not "a major flaw"
2) the second flaw you list has nothing to do with the court system
3) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about the law, than the judges and lawyers that graduated with advanced degrees and have real world experience working with the law, and advanced professionally to the positions they now hold.
4) with no credentials,
the "SAMSUNG" across the top? (Score:2)
Also, the aspect ratio is slightly wrong (iPhone is longer relative to width), and the back and sides are white.
Sure, it has more resemblance to an iPhone than strictly necessary (the new Galaxy 3 looks different), but at the skinny bezel, edge-to-edge screen, and rounded corners are all natural endpoints in the development of a handheld touchscreen device. Look at the Motorola Motoluxe.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea (Score:2)
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.
Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Or in other words. (Score:3)
"poking a picture" (see the pre-computer definition of "icon" or "glyph")
"autocomple text" (see any idiot that has ever cut you off mid-sentence bark out what he thinks you are going to say)
"using a slide-bolt latch" (found at any hardware store since the invention of same, an any wood-worker for before that)
"searching multiple things like in gopher" (see things like gopher)
All of these things are unspeakably innovative for their age (their age being "bronze", except for gopher, which was "computer relative
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, perhaps Samsung should try inventing things themselves, rather than let Apple invent everything.
Here [xorl.org] is what all touchscreen smartphones looked like before Apple came along and showed how the world how to do it (complete link) [xorl.org].
Apple were first [xorl.org] people to do anything like that at all, so they should obviously have a patent.
They basically invented [painterfun.com] the entirely featureless tablet and the touch based user interface.
(for the impared: please actually look at links before flaming)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes, the misuse of the English language yet again.
Invent implies they had something to do with the r&d into the development of touch screens. They "integrated" touch screens into a product which they received after acquiring fingerworks.
For yor reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, the misuse of the English language yet again.
I wasn't aware that sarcasm was mis-use.
Apple patents are bullshit (Score:2)
June 19, 2012
Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation
Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices
http://www.patentlyapple.com/
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that illustration you have for "Apple were [sic] first" is not an apple device at all, but a Compaq IPAQ [wikipedia.org], originally released by Compaq in 2000. it's nominally a predecessor of the Touchpad, along with Palm. Perhaps you were trying to reference the Apple Newton [wikipedia.org], which first released in 1993? However, if you are looking for the first touchscreen telephony device that would be the IBM Simon Personal Communicator [wikipedia.org], of which the initial prototype was demo'd at COMDEX in 1992.
So...no, Apple was not t
Funny part is... (Score:4, Informative)
Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".
Apple is just yelling "how dare you" while whispering the "use the stuff you make to make a phone, like you do, after we claimed to invent the stuff you make that was invented by someone totally else like twenty years ago".
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Not going to reply to this other than to say that you need to look up the definition of the word conspiracy. If people are working as single individuals or groups IN THE OPEN then it isn't a conspiracy. You're just trying to use "conspiracy theory" as a putdown.
Re: (Score:2)
They most likely will be able to do that. The problem here is that they can't sell their product while they do it and the court system is slow.
Re: (Score:2)
... I was also just thinking that it's unlikely that when the injunction is appealed, that it's unlikely that Samsung will be paid enough for the lost sales, marketing time, etc. Perhaps the cost of having these bullshit injunctions overturned should be that the claimant have sales of their products blocked for a similar amount of time.
Some Apple patents have been invalidated, but . . (Score:2)
Getting a patent is relatively quick and easy. Even if the paten is 100% bogus. For example, just last June patented: "Mobile Device Aided Navigation " Never mind that GPS makers like Garmin, and TomTom, had this for many years.
On the other hand, getting a patent invalidated is a long, expensive, complicated process.
It's just the way the system is set up.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, have you actually looked at the patents in question? We have a slide lock switch for the touchscreen. Slide locks are not particularly novel. But of course the idea of using them on a touchscreen is perfectly novel and non-obvious.
The other two are of similar caliber. There is no way you can avoid those totally obvious things if you are going to create a touchscreen user interface for a phone.
Basically Apple thinks it is entitled to a monopoly on touchscreen phones because they were first to, uh, sue (other products were in the market first), and would suffer irreparable harm if others were allowed to enter into the market, something known as "competition".
Because they are an American company (never mind that they avoid producing stuff in the U.S.A.), a U.S. judge swallows the "we want the market to ourselves" sob story.
The "patents" are merely a pretense for getting the judicial system's active help monopolizing the U.S. market. One needs to sue over something, however ridiculous, or one does not get a judge involved in this sort of perversion.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe all smartphone makers should review other companies' patents BEFORE they make a phone. Then if there's something legit, don't put it in your phone. If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated. That would definitely save some money. But I guess "screw it, let's just make a phone and deal with it later" works too.
When I was working for a well known big tech company, their legal department advised us not to look at patents and just to blindly implement away. This advice is based on several premises:
1. There are so many patents, looking through them and figuring out which might be infringing is extremely expensive (if all the engineers do it, the company would be spending way more on looking for patents than they would actually end up paying out on the odd occasion that a court decided they were infringing).
2. If the
Winning the case is not the goal (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.
The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung. MS has all the cash in the world. Cash does not equal smart phone market share. Samsung has momentum. If Apple can break that momentum, Samsung getting 96 million won't help much.
Apple's strategy is to win in the long run. If people can't by Samsung products for 1 year, what are they going to do? Switch. Samsung will lose hard earned market share, time and momentum. When Samsung re-enters the market, the 96 million will not cover their true losses.
Re: (Score:2)
A punishment could be valued at much more than 96 million, but it's unlikely to be even close to what being blocked from the market for that long truly costs. If Apple loses, the punishment should be that their products are blocked for the same length of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Which patent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's based on the "unified database search" function (Siri) because Apple claimed (and the judge accepted without critique) that this is a major reason why people by iPhones, and hence copying it posses a potentially serious threat to sales. Nonsense in every respect, but there it is.
What I find curious... (Score:4, Informative)
I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about(for extra credit, in some manner that allows firmware modders to oh-so-deviously flip it back, if they want) so that they can start moving units without having to clear up any legal issues, and then push a firmware update once the legal wrangling is sorted out...
You can't do that with hardware-related patents, obviously; but I would think that the financial impact of an injunction that keeps you from shipping on time(especially given the percentage of the US phone market dictated largely by what phones carriers feel like flogging today, and the carriers' distinct dislike for delay: see also Microsoft Kin's horrible death) would be overwhelmingly greater than the financial impact of having to ship without a few bullet points for whatever crap skin you are slapping on top of your Android build, especially if you can turn those back on with an update once the lawyers clear.
It is the Google phone that is blocked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to 'flip bits' to re-enable any of these ridiculously simple features. Android lets you replace pretty much any piece of functionality, including lock screens, etc. People can just install the features from the market (or directly as APK files).
Re: (Score:2)
"I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about"
Samsung didn't write any of the features Apple is suing over. The Galaxy Nexus is running AOSP Android 4.0. Outside of the modem, there is *zero* Samsung code running on the device. They're suing Samsung over something they don't like that Google wrote.
Re: (Score:3)
What Would Really Be Funny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apples lawyers think so (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
:-\ Oh well. Maybe she has a sister...
Re:Pics or GTFO! (Score:5, Funny)
the short answer is no, but it is whats inside that counts.
Not for Apple's patents.
Re: (Score:2)
He's also stupid because he apparently has no clue what-so-ever about the patent system. The whole point is to grant a monopoly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's no denying that Apple's designs have permeated the industry - but that's not what this injunction is about. It's about the ability of a device to have a uniform interface to search multiple databases (implemented by Siri in iOS and by the Google search bar in Android). *This* function predates iPhones/iOS, should not be the basis of a patent, and is not Apple's "intellectual property".
Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that the patent you're talking about [freepatentsonline.com] predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents [appleinsider.com] being used in this case, all but one [freepatentsonline.com] predates the launch of Android, and one of them [freepatentsonline.com] dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.
As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.
Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
Even though I like Apple products quite a bit, I thought it was BS that they were claiming Samsung's were too similar and that they were confusing consumers...
Until I walked into a Best Buy one day (a friend dragged me in, I swear), went up to what I thought was an iPad display area next to the Apple section, and picked up what I thought was an iPad on display (though something seemed off, which I later realized was the camera located on the other side of the device than it is on an iPad). It became clear a few seconds after I turned it on and didn't see the typical iOS home screen that the device in my hands was not an iPad, but was actually a Galaxy Tab 10.1. I''ve been using Apple products for years, so you'd think I'd recognize their devices, but I was unable to identify that it wasn't an iPad until I had the device in my hands for a few seconds.
After that, my opinion changed, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
It became clear a few seconds after I turned it on and didn't see the typical iOS home screen that the device in my hands was not an iPad, but was actually a Galaxy Tab 10.1
So what you're saying is that, despite all of the supposed similarities and alleged copying going on at the UI and software level, it was immediately obvious to you upon inspecting a running Samsung tablet that it was not an iPad?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I was speaking purely regarding the hardware. I don't support the notion of software patents any more than the typical /.er, nor do I support Apple's litigation against these companies on the basis of software patents, though I do support their right to litigate based on trade dress, copyright, or (non-ridiculous) hardware patents, should they so choose.