Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the learn-to-play-nice dept.

Android 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."

cancel ×

159 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fr1st p0St (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313064)

fR1sT Pr0St !!!!!

Re:Fr1st p0St (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313474)

in my language prost means stupid :)

Re:Fr1st p0St (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313558)

Frist Prost is actually an english phrase that means "I'm stupid" too. :P
Stupid like the legal warfare shenanigans between idevice companies. And the companies themselves.

What an appalling title (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313078)

"Apple loses appeal to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia" - beyond your abilities to write that?

Appalling title.

Re:What an appalling title (5, Insightful)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313142)

How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.

You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.

Re:What an appalling title (5, Insightful)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313170)

Not in my opinion. It is an appallingly misleading title. The tablet battle definitely implies the sales battle. This title would almost always point to Apple not being as popular as another brand. Most people reading that title would not expect it to mean they loose a court ruling.

Re:What an appalling title (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313180)

I did, but then again I'd read the story in another feed long before /. picked up on it...

Re:What an appalling title (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313188)

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:What an appalling title (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313232)

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:What an appalling title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313418)

The tablet battle definitely implies the sales battle

Only if you've been living under a rock (or in your mom's basement) for the past few years. For the rest of us, " battle" implies a legal spat where any sane observer would assume he's watching a Greek tragedy played by jesters.

ps it's "they let loose" or "they loosen(ed)", but I suspect you actually meant "lost". Or were lost. Or whatever.

Re:What an appalling title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313462)

argh. /. ate my <tech>

Re:What an appalling title (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313444)

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:What an appalling title (1)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314376)

It's a perfectly cromulent title.

Apple are the ones who made it a war of blocking their competitors from the market instead of competing on sales. Clearly, they've lost one of the battles--even if they eventually win the legal case against Samsung, the next generation devices from both manufacturers would already be out, they might gain financially but that's not what they are after.

Apple aren't willing to compete fairly on the market, so I don't see how anything implies a 'sales battle' - a sales battle is precisely what Apple don't want.

Re:What an appalling title (1)

bmwEnthusiast (1384289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314548)

With the thousands of law suits apple is responsible for at this ver moment. How would you deduce the titles regards anything but a legal battle. \\iSuit

Re:What an appalling title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313190)

I'd say the actual title is more accurate in the long term.

Apple shareholders a few years from now will look back and see that this is where it started.

Re:What an appalling title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313618)

"Apple loses appeal to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia" - beyond your abilities to write that?

Appalling title.

At least it wasn't astoturfed with applecentric claims that the judge gave the wrong judgement.

Re:What an appalling title (2)

ozbird (127571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313662)

"Samsung p0wns Apple." FTFY.

Re:What an appalling title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314874)

whine,whine,whine says the appalling apple fanboy... ...why don't you go lay flowers on the grave of your dead messiah

How do you like (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313090)

them apples!

Also lost iPad trademark in China (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313094)

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 (4, Informative)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313186)

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (0, Troll)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313230)

I love bashing Apple as much as the next person (don't know why, it is irrational of me) but the linked atricle didn't mention anything about Apple sueing anybody. From the site

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 (4, Informative)

PaladinAlpha (645879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313254)

Article detailing the lawsuit here [reuters.com] . Apple did, in fact, sue the local business asserting a stronger claim to the trademark.

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313350)

Complete misunderstanding on my part. I always thought very generally that sueing ment in addition to whatever the dispute was that the sue er... was also seeking compensation. "Trademark dispute" sounds more like resolving a difference in the court, no compensation after legal fees required. I don't have a particularly strong grasp of how all this works :S, from both articles Apple obviously wanted the rights to the trademark, I'm unsure if they sought compensation.

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313430)

Article detailing the lawsuit here [reuters.com] . Apple did, in fact, sue the local business asserting a stronger claim to the trademark.

Apple are so gay

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313688)

Apple are so gay

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (3, Informative)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313496)

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313548)

Why do you post as a proof a link to the article that directly contradicts your statements?

Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006.

Proview disagrees - it says the Chinese trademark rights are actually owned by its Shenzhen-based company, and are different to those owned by its Taiwan subsidiary.

Plus never mind they have no product named, "iPad" either.

Proview currently uses the iPad name on several of its products, including computer monitors.

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313792)

I know the others but what is Xe?

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314306)

Blackwater

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (4, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313840)

Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006.

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1)

Nanosphere (1867972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313540)

Interestingly enough when I was in college in 2005 one of the labs had a shelf with some old equipment from the late 90's early 2000. There sat an old wired VoIP phone with a plasticy label on top, it said "iPhone". I wish I could find a picture of it.

Edit: Found it on wikipedia Linksys iPhone [wikipedia.org] it was created by InfoGear in '98.

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313596)

You link to proof that Cisco didn't use much (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314594)

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1, Informative)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313544)

You forgot a pretty important fact...

In 2006 the company sold Apple the âoeglobal trademarkâ for IPADâ"but later the companies disputed whether the $55,000 deal included China.

from here [theepochtimes.com]

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (4, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313922)

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:Also lost iPad trademark in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314474)

Now Apple will probably just buy the name.

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (4, Funny)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313272)

In communist China Slashdot is powered by your submissions..

Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313386)

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.

denied with costs? (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313102)

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:denied with costs? (1)

olehenning (1090423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313136)

Apple wasn't really the first either. The JooJoo (although it sucked) was released before the iPad was even announced.

Re:denied with costs? (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313240)

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? (3, Interesting)

PaladinAlpha (645879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313300)

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:denied with costs? (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313614)

Huh? Your link proves my point.

The pictured prototype looks nothing like an iPad. The only thing in common is that it's a device containing a rectangular screen.

The tablet finally released as a Joojoo looked just like the iPad.

Re:denied with costs? (2, Insightful)

PaladinAlpha (645879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313906)

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 several of the same design elements -- and a year later began suing people for using those same elements. (Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)

Re:denied with costs? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314464)

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 button to copy the iPad. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Of course it looks nothing like an iPad, because iPads didn't exist when this prototype was displayed.

Exactly my point. And after the iPad was demoed they did copy it. Same with most other manufacturers of tablets and phones.

(Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)

Oh, I haven't heard this one. Go ahead, I could do with a laugh.

Re:denied with costs? (1)

PaladinAlpha (645879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38315058)

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 company, after years of development, suddenly completely redid it's supply, production, and assembly in two months, not counting auxiliary materials, because you have blind (or purchased) loyalty to a company that is attempting to abuse the patent system worldwide. The overwhelmingly more likely explanation is that they were both using the technology and materials available. Apple was no doubt 'inspired' by the Crunch Tablet, but that's how business works.

Oh, and regarding Apple's falsification of legal documents:
Here [bbc.co.uk] , and here [itworld.com] .

Re:denied with costs? (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 2 years ago | (#38315300)

(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:denied with costs? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313740)

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:denied with costs? (1)

olehenning (1090423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313310)

Ah, I see. I was under the impression that the JooJoo was first released in December 2009.

Why compare announce dates to release dates? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314196)

Are you trying to distort the truth?

The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.

Re:Why compare announce dates to release dates? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314278)

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:Why compare announce dates to release dates? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314452)

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:denied with costs? (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313144)

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:denied with costs? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313260)

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:denied with costs? (1)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313984)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314228)

Apple's expert disagrees [sbnation.com] .

Because obviously "... alternative smartphone designs include: [snip] front surfaces that are not rectangular (Exs.7-10), not flat (Exs. 11-13), and without rounded corners (Exs. 9, 14, 15) ..."

Just make triangular tablets with convex/concave screens and sharp corners to comfortably hold them.

Re:denied with costs? (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313324)

"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:denied with costs? (0)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313694)

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?!

But they're not. They may be a valid way to come up with new ideas as a jumping off place for inventing, but you cannot get a patent for "X on the web" where X is known. It's important to remember that despite what a patent may be titled ("network device"), and despite what someone may paraphrase or characterize a patent as ("one-click"), the only part of the patent with legal weight is the claims. And there are no patents that claim existing technologies "on the web" or "on a mobile device".

To go a bit more in depth, this myth got started when some people read dependent claims that appear to claim obvious structures, and didn't really understand what they're claiming. There's a doctrine called claim differentiation: each claim in a patent is a distinct invention, with different scope. So, if one claim says "... on a network..." and a dependent claims says "the method of claim 1, wherein the network is the Internet," then that implies that the network of claim 1 may be other networks than the internet. Essentially, the dependent claim is a subset within the base claim.

But, the base claim still has to be patentable. So, when someone claims, "the method of claim 1, wherein the network is the Internet," they're not patenting the Internet, nor are they patenting "known technology... on the Internet!" That base claim 1 is not a known technology, so neither is the dependent claim, by definition. Even if it uses the Internet.

Re:denied with costs? (4, Informative)

stainlesssteelpat (905359) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313168)

down here loser pays, they lost with costs.

Re:denied with costs? (2, Funny)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313274)

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Hmm, maybe that's why I've always liked chain-quests.

Re:denied with costs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314024)

I couldn't find a single model on display where the soap didn't go in on the left.

I consider that a Good Thing (tm).
Really, there should not be such a thing as patents on user interfaces.

Multiple negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313110)

So they denied an appeal to an overturn on a ban. Oh boy, without the title I wouldn't have understood who won and who lost.

Would be funny if (5, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313150)

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

Re:Would be funny if (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313202)

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:Would be funny if (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313408)

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:Would be funny if (2)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313550)

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 (4, Insightful)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314038)

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... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313198)

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? (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313330)

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? (4, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313426)

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 (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313452)

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 (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313526)

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:Its not me rewriting history (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313674)

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?

Re:Its not me rewriting history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313828)

Are you dense. Apple paid by offering discounted shares. The discount was the compensation. Xerox agreed to it and it was a fair deal. Your attempt to rewrite history is pathetic.

FFS, is this idiot week? (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313962)

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".

Xerox FAIL, Apple Win. Fair play. (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313716)

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:Xerox FAIL, Apple Win. Fair play. (1, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313898)

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:Its not me rewriting history (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313810)

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:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (1, Informative)

nathanh (1214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313568)

The Lisa & Mac were total ripoffs of the stuff Jobs saw at Parc.

So would you agree with these statements?

PARC was a ripoff of Engelbart's demo at SRI.

Linux is a ripoff of UNIX.

GNOME is a ripoff of Windows.

Because not a single one of those statements is true, but they're equivalent to your bullshit.

You need to get a grip on reality. Nearly everything in computing is an incremental improvement from something else. That doesn't make it an automatic "ripoff". Apple massively improved the desktop metaphor with the Lisa and Mac. They contributed greatly to the advancement of user interfaces. Have you used a Star? Have you used a Lisa? If you had, you would not for a minute claim that the Lisa was a "knockoff". There are graphical elements in the Lisa and Mac that were not created nor used at PARC. Yes, there are some similarities... WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE. There are also elements in the Lisa and Mac that were copied from UI research that existed before the groundbreaking work at PARC. And there are far more elements that were invented by Apple and their employees (Apple employed some of the brightest UI designers on the planet at the time).

This historical rewriting that occurs amongst Apple-haters - that somehow the Lisa/Mac were just "knockoffs" of PARC - not only shows a profound ignorance of PARC, and of Apple, but of computing in general. It paints you as a blinded zealot. Is that what you want to be? Rewriting history doesn't make you cool; it just means you're a nimrod.

Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (4, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313772)

"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:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314816)

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:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313798)

The point here, since you obviously missed it, is that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yes Linux is a ripoff of UNIX. Did you Linux sue somebody?

Yes Gnome is a ripoff of Windows. Did Gnome sue somebody?

> WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE

WRONG. Xerox payed for Apple stocks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#Adoption_by_Apple) . I suggest you learn history first before accusing someone of rewriting history.

Have you consider that you could be on the other side of the spectrum from the Apple-haters? The blinded Apple-fanatical cultist?

Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (1)

iapetus (24050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313832)

But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.

Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38314032)

How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves?

This is the way all sociopaths think.

Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? (2, Insightful)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314086)

How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves?

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.

Over in France (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313374)

Re:Over in France (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313486)

Not sure how this is modded a troll when it's a simple statement of fact. Unless of course it's the usual /. hive think and doesn't bash apple. Just deal with a fact when it's presented

Re:Over in France (3, Informative)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313608)

Because it's Florian, and yes - he is a troll.

Re:Over in France (2)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314522)

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]

All this sillyness... (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313432)

IS caused by the Patent system.

Honestly, all it does is stifle creativity. I made a square, you cant make a square too!

Re:All this sillyness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38313514)

It's not that patents are inherently wrong, it's that the system is rotten down.

I can see the merit of design patents covering ornamental design elements to prevent cheap chinese Able iFads and Sansung Galazy Tads from fooling the customers (and those should be covered by trademark law as well, anyways), but Apple's design patents claim that lack of ornamentation is ornamental design. In other news, atheism is a religion and baldness is a hairdo.

Re:All this sillyness... (1, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313848)

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 silence.

The problem with these patents is that they rely on trying to describe in unambiguous words what is actually a subjective visual judgement, so you get these lists of attributes that sound ridiculous. All you can really do is get a jury, show them a representative selection of tablets/phones and ask whether any look as if they were copied from the iPad.

Misleading headline - not a total loss (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313638)

This was just Apple appealing the removal of the injunction against Samsung selling their tablets. The infringement case is still going on, however. The court merely ruled that if Samsung is found to infringe, monetary damages would be an appropriate remedy, so a total and preemptive ban on sales is unnecessary.

Really, injunctions are - and should be - rare. This was not unexpected, and really doesn't affect the infringement suit much.

Re:Misleading headline - not a total loss (1)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314436)

Apple don't care about infringement damages, and Samsung can afford to pay them. By the time they get a judgement the device would already be obsolete.

Samsung Loses Phone Battle in France, Italy Next (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#38313800)

Re:Samsung Loses Phone Battle in France, Italy Nex (2)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38314390)

That was expected though, it was a nothing to lose shot from Samsung.

Enjoy your Striesand Effect, Apple (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38315268)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>