Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
Ok, so that is your opinion. About C180 don't you confuse BMW with Mercedes?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Parent writes ...
"the acts of a ´lawyer´ (against a court order) get
justified... "
Just what court order are you referring to?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
A Samsung lawyer used their first amendment rights to
answer media questions. Apple over-reacted and asked
for sanctions. Apple was denied.
So now ... what court order did a lawyer act against???[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
Well argued and reasoned. Of course you will be shouted out of town
here.
I've been reading Groklaw since late 2003. I I've donated
money.
Not a lot, but it's my personal money and I donated on a couple
occasions. How
many of you have put your money where your mouths are? I
cheered PJ and her
style. She had a clear agenda, but was
completely
transparent about it and
supported it with the community's help with facts
and
logic.
I've been a
Linux user since 1991 (yes, well before there was a distribution). I
have
(unimportant, but still legitimate) kernel credits. I love Linux and the
contribution
it's made to the industry.
I also recall PJ discussing the
Mac notebooks, and defending Apple for its
choice to
keep many things closed
by explaining that everything Apple produced was
original,
that
they deserved
their recognition for design excellence and that they truly
moved the
entire
industry in ways it wasn't going on its own, to the benefit of everyone.
They
honored open-
source licenses wherever they used them, and their closed software
(and
hardware) was entirely of
their own invention and design. They did it
the hard way (on their own) and
deserve to
control their creations
exactly
like GPL authors deserve to control their creations with the concept of
Copyleft.
But Groklaw is now off the rails.
Now that Apple is
directly taking on Samsung, an Android partner, whatever
objectivity there was
has been completely thrown out the window. Sorry, it's
not because PJ is no
longer in complete control... PJ you're leading the march down the wrong road
here.
If you've spent any time with these products, and if you have any
intellectual
honesty whatsoever, it's overwhelmingly obvious that the Android
UI,
and to a much greater extent Samsung's Android physical products, are
entirely
formulated to be direct copies of all Apple's designs and
innovations in iPad,
iPhone, and iPod.
Frankly
I'm embarrassed and
disappointed in the entire Android team for being led
down
that path to begin
with, because while Apple's iOS platform is great, it's hardly
the
only way to
do things, and Android's decision to become an also-alike to iOS
limits
its
potential.
But this lawsuit really isn't about Android. It's about
physical products
shipped to
the world, old-school bricks-and-mortar
products.
Apple went to great length to set its products apart from the
competition, so
that
people would rightly recognize them when they see them.
That is why
iPhones,
iPads, and iPods look so much different than other
manufacturers' products,
in
ways that have nothing to do with
function.
Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs, visually,
down almost to
the
last detail. The clear intent was to trick the consumer
into believing that all
tablets
are the same, so that Samsung could take
advantage of Apple's inventions to
sell
their own products (whether Samsung
copied the actual benefits of the Apple
products or not).
That's
the heart of the trade dress issue in this lawsuit. The reason
Samsung is
playing BS games in the media is that they have been called out
on it,
and
they want to obscure the embarrassment as much as possible by
throwing up
smokescreens.
This isn't Microsoft lunging out at Linux for being better
and threatening their
cash
cow.
This isn't Oracle vs
Google
either, with
Oracle trying to grasp at straws and close off the sandbox after
having
invited everyone in. This is a lot more like the ugly underbelly of the
Psystar
lawsuit,
where someone (and it may still be a mystery exactly who) was
trying to
undermine the
GPL by challenging authors' rights to control the
distribution of their
creations. It was
wrong then, and it's wrong
now.
If Samsung had chosen to innovate itself, and either continue along
the
design line it was using itself,
or stride off in another direction, this
fight wouldn't be happening. When they
realized that their
physical designs
were just another ho-hum plastic case like the rest of the
tablet market that
nobody
was interested in, they could have done any number of things. But they
didn't; they chose to clone
Apple's unique break-out look, and to try to
co-opt some of the excitement
(and
market)
created by Apple for themselves.
That's dishonest and illegal.
The claims that this is Apple being
anti-competitive are ludicrous on their
face. The
only
products Apple is
fighting are the ones that are blatant copies of the
breakthrough
attributes
of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod that didn't exist before.
Shame on you PJ.
I'm disappointed that you can't see past your allegiance to
Linux
enough to
see its anticompetitive standards-essential patent abuse and its
blatant
counterfeiting for what it is.
Don't like that Apple is using patents and
"trade dress" law to protect its
brand? Write
your congressperson and get the
laws changed. Or better yet, learn more
about
patents and trade dress and
understand why this isn't exactly the same as the
software
patent
bogeyman.
Ignore or disparage this rant if you will, but I'm sad to say
that Groklaw is
leaving my
RSS
list today after almost 9 years of
committed
readership. Good riddance, I'm sure many of you will say, but you really
should
step back and listen to
yourselves. You're not the thoughtful,
balanced group you once were (and
not long
ago). "Rabid
mob" might be
unfair, but only slightly so.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs - Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: nuthead on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Same old whine, new bottle - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- Oh, and - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:10 PM EDT
- According to UK courts ... - Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
There was no order against publishing the evidence, you Apple
shill.
And spare me "I'm no an apple fanboy, I've so and so"
bullshit when you then proceed to state the Apple mantra.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
What many have difficult to understand is that,
outside the ´tech
world´, most people doesn't have a clue
about what an OS is, or what a
microprocessor is, or... It
is quite anecdotal. But this really an issue here,
since if
you look at one of those many galaxies out there, you have
to look
closely to notice it is a samsung... otherwise, on
the hurry, you may be
mistaken.
OK, I'm looking at my Samsung Galaxy SII right now
and I
notice a few things:
- It's thinner than my iPhone 3GS and my
work colleagues
iPhone 4
- It's slightly larger in surface area than
both
iPhones
- It has Samsung written on the front face - The iPhones
have a logo on the back
- It has a removable back cover, the iPhones
do not
- It has a removable battery, the iPhones do not
- It
has a square button down the bottom, the iPhones
have a round one
- It
has a power button on the side, the iPhone's is on
the top
And I
haven't even turned it on yet - Im sorry, but I can
mistake my Samsung Galaxy
SII for an iPhone as much as I can
mistake, say, a small rectangular block of
wood
And the point here isn't the rectangle (all
phones are
like that) but the overall appearance. I mean,
before iPhone, all phones were
quite different, there was
all sort of layouts, styles, models (in the lower
and upper
end...). As they say, there was no design reference. Now,
when you
look at the upper end, they look all the same (as
an iPhone, a bit bigger, a
bit smaller, thicker...but
overall alike).
But there
is one thing that is bothering me
most, I mean, I started reading groklaw about
2003, it was
refreshing in the sense, above the opinions, there was
always
reference to written law, so that anyone could follow
the logic... And now, in
this ´apple x samsung´ theater, I
see more and more opinions of how wrong the
´trade law´ is,
how unfair the magistrate is..and..and... to the point that
the acts of a ´lawyer´ (against a court order) get
justified... It seams
that, since the logic don´t follows,
you need emotion.
Others
have already said it - There was no court order
prohibiting the Samsung lawyers
from doing what they did. If
there was, sanctions would have been immediate.
And what you
are now saying is that whatever Apple's lawyers do, they do
not
need to be 'justified', but Samsung's lawyers must
justify every
action
I have no stake on apple, I have had phones from
samsung (peace of ...), motorola (mostly a pain), siemens
(quite nice), nokia
(always reliable)... and apple
(expensive, but simply
works).
OK, I resisted the 'Apple is sooo great' mantra during
the iPod era (I didn't even consider buying any MP3
player). That was
until Apple released the first iPod nano
and I simply had to have one.
Yep, Apple had created
something so incredible (small, light, functional) that
I
had to have it. Thing is, there were heaps of other small
MP3 players in the
market. The big difference witht he iPod
nano was the LCD graphic screen
(others just had little text
displays) and iTunes.
Years later, I went
to the Apple store in Sydney. WOW!
I was dumbstruck by how impressive
the store was, and
the design elegance of the Apple products. Not long after
that, my wife bought me an iPod Touch. It was expensive and,
alas, it did
not just work. The touch screen
was registering about 1/3 of the
screen to the left. I could
not even unlock it. But we got a replacement that
worked the
next day
Before then, I only had 'dumb-phones' from Nokia.
Mostly
good, some were a bit iffy. But after the iPod Touch, I had
to have an
iPhone 3GS. It was pretty good, until a firware
update resulted in random
in-call shut-downs. A problem
that, despite thousands of postings to the
official Apple
forums, was never fixed.
Apple quickly started
loosing my support
Then I bought the a HP TouchPad during the firesale.
WebOS was nice, nothing spectacular thought. Then Cyanogen
ported Android to
it. WOW! Not only was the UI far
superior (in my opinion) to iOS, I now
had a device that was
not closed. I could hack on the OS. Sure, not something
every consumer cares about, but this one did
After that, I got
the Samsung Galaxy SII. I love it - it
has widgets. When I unlock it, I can see
the weather without
opening an app. I can drag down from the top and get
instant
access to turning WiFi, GPS, Vibrate mode, etc on and off.
The
configuration settings are way more logical (to me). All
in all, it's a far
superior phone to the iPhone 3GS
AND they are worlds apart,
specially when you
compare the phones before and after apple got into
it.
Yes, they are. I remember back to the Apple IIe days (my
first computer) when it was Apple versus Commodore. The C64
was a better
computer for the home consumer (colour graphics
without an add-in card, plugged
into a TV, more games,
cheaper, etc, etc. But what Apple did was get intot he
schools. It offered teachers a massive discount. In short,
Apple was
clever. Then the PC came out and dominated
the home marker. Apple got
clever again - They created the
Macintosh. The Macintosh was designed for the
professional
graphics and CAD market (our high school had one for the
engineering drawing course). But then Apple lost it's way
(thanks in no small
part to Microsoft's antics). Apple
nearly went bankrupt. But then they came
back. How? They
inovated, they made Apple products 'cool'. And we all loved
them for it. Apple was smashing Microsoft. We hated
Microsoft because they
were being a bully, using muscle
instead of imagination. Fear instead of
innovation.
We can discuss if the law is fair, if there is
´prior art´, if the tactics are ´lawful/fair´... But is
really hard to argue
that, without Apple we would
having phones like the ones we have today, or that
the
´face/style/design´ of the phones would be like the ones
from apple, or
even if there would be an android ...
WOW! Have a read
of what you just wrote. You are
saying that prior art is meaningless unless it
is Apple's.
It's OK for Apple to stand upon the shoulders of those how
stood
before them, but how dare Samsung stand on Apple's!
Look at the prior art -
There were already smart-phones in
the market that closely resembled the iPhone
before
the iPhone was released. Just because that prior art has
been
barred from this case does not mean it suddenly does
not
exist
Symbian was king, windows phone 6.5 was a
knight,
HTC/samsung were trying to ´imitate them´...this was
before...
Apple
was a real game changer in that process, and the
establishment got
unguarded.
100% true and correct - Apple was a game changer. The
establishment was taken offguard.
What is also true and correct is that
Apple, like 3dfx,
make one big mistake - They got complacent. Apple had a
massive market share. How could that have possibly been
eroded. Ah, of course,
Samsung cheated.
And the way I understand ´trademark
law´,
´design and trade dress´, the whole idea is to ´exclude the
others´, and
make sure no one will ´eat my encilhada´.
(which is obviously unfair for the
others...). Many will not
agree, but Apple trait their devices as
´porches/ferraris´
(or a gucci/loui viton purse), and they stick a price on it.
If, lets say, samsung produce phones that, on the surface
are mostly equal,
but for the half of it, they loose value,
as simple as
that.
No - patents are to exlude others. Trade marks are to
prevent others from mimicing your design and gaining market
share by
leveraging off consumer confusion. I aggree, Apple
is 'top shelf'. The
engineering is impecible - solid, clean,
etc. But Samsung phones are not equal.
There are so many
distinguishing features that the appearance of the
phone is not the sole factor in the purchasing decision.
People now want an
Android Phone - They will go into
a phone shop and say 'what Android
phones do you have' -
Samsung are competing against other Android phones
more than they compete against the iPhone.
I´m sure
they don´t care if samsung, nokia would
sell ´better spec. phones´, for half
the price, but with
different design/appearance/interface, so that they
could
still ´over price´ their phones... just for being
apple (like they do with
their mac´s).
of course Apple care if Samsung, Nokia, et. al.
sell a
better spec'd phone! If they didn't, they wouldn't have
introduced
'Retina Display'
This is the best for the end user? Well,
that´s
hard to answer. No one is obeyed to buy from A or B. But, if
you like
the quality of a BMW, the engine of a BMW,
the comfort of a BMW, the safety of a
BMW, you should better
be prepared to pay for it, and don´t expect that a
Korean
company would produce a ´c 180 cabriolet´ mainly identical
to original
one, but with a different logo...
Ah, if I produced a car
identical to a BMW with a
different logo, then BMW would have a
trade-dress argument.
But, if I produce a black sedan with four wheels and an
engine at the front, BMW has no claim. Now, if I produce an
obvious variation
to one of my existing cars and released it
at the same time as BMW releases a
similar looking car, who
is at fault? My new car is a simple variation of my
old car.
Actually, cars are a good example - Take two car
manufactures from
the same country (Ford and Holden in
Australia for example). Now, go back and
compare, year by
year, each of the cars they manufactured. The designs change
a lot over time, but funnily, each year they kindof look the
same as each
other. They follow a kind of fashion trend.
Ever thought that phones might be
the same?
Last point, samsung is the power it is today, in
part because of apple, what reminds that apple is really
searching for new
suppliers...this is going to be a long
war.
And Apple is where
it is because of Samsung. Did you know
that Samsung produce the 'Retina
Display' for the iPad (and
LG for the iPhone)?
Well, as for
opinion, this is mine.
And you are more than welcome to have and
to express it.
But please, don't take offence when it's flaws are pointed
out
:) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- Engineers can spell. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:53 AM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
Well, as they say, everyone is entitled to their
own opinion but not their own
facts. Your homework
assignment is to prove that I have ever written
that
trade law is all wrong. Also show me the
court order you allege that the
Samsung
lawyer violated. You won't be able to prove either.
By the way,
just so
you know, I see your real IP address, as well as
the pretend one. And
if you keep this up, with your
phony ways, you are so outahere. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
"And the point here isn't the rectangle (all phones are like
that)"
Yes.
"but the overall appearance."
Oh? But there ARE differences between models and makes.
"Apple was a real game changer in that process, and the
establishment got unguarded."
Wrong. Apple was not first with anything really and was not
a game changer. They were new to the market. That's it.
Nothing more than Jobs and an unprecedented hype thanks to a
semi-religious cult following which has been around since
the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Compar
ison_with_a_cult.2Freligion
That, AND, that less tech savvy journalists at large
newspapers (i.e. paper newspapers like NYTimes etc) tended
to report about iPhone as well as had done for their
favorite computer, the pathetic iMac. So, these lowlife
undereducated journalists who had no idea about technology
started to bring the news about the iPhone to the large
masses. These guys had never reported about a phone before.
But, when their favorite computer maker made one, THEN, it
was news-worthy.
That is why the iPhone succeeded. Not, because of anything
else. It was a hype, self-created and self-perpetuated by
front page journalists very much aware that they were
pushing their limits in objectivity; but done so in the name
of Apple, their favorite computer.
What was also important for iPhone was the emergence of new,
cheaper technologies like touchscreens. But, those were
used by other makers too and Apple (or Steve Jobs...) had
little to do with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen
Look at the Neonode instead! That is several years older
than the iPhone, if only to see all iPhone ideas in vivo
long before iPhone. Unfortunately, Neonode didn't have a
obsessively possessed leader.
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|