Samsung-Apple Wars: Galaxy blocked Down Under Apple's copycat tablet war with Samsung has found a new theatre, it is hitting the Australian courts. Apple is seeking an injunction against Samsung which would block the Korean electronics giant from launching the latest version of its Galaxy tablet computer in Australia until the patent lawsuit is resolved. On Monday, a …
Samsung infringed the touchscreen technology of the iFad ?
Isn't it Samsung that MAKES the fecking display units for those things?
I so hope Google (IBM patents) and HTC (S3 patents) give crapple a sturdy kick in the See You Next Tuesday, they're (crapple) surely the most poisonous and counter-innovative company on the face of the earth at the moment.
Thoroughly sick of hearing about them pursuing their new legal business model now they've run out of other people's ideas (3G, cameras, GPS, etc) to stick in their mobile widgets and make like they invented them.
This post has been deleted by its author
I downvoted for (i) the use of 'Crapple' and 'iFad'; (ii) the apparent assertion that if someone manufactures something, obviously they must have the intellectual rights to it; and (iii) the statement that Apple are somehow more culpable than everybody else for the current lawsuit frenzy.
All of the big tech beasts have worked in concert to put us in the stupid intellectual property position we're in now. To pull a single instance out of the many idiotic lawsuits going on and say "oh, well obviously that claimant is to blame" doesn't ring true. The first example of phone manufacturers suing each other on slightly flimsy patent grounds regarding current-or-near-enough phones that I can find is Nokia suing Apple, but I neither think that pins the blame for the whole thing on Nokia nor do I think it justifies Apple's lawyerlust.
Summary: downvote was because the post was wrong on the facts and written in a childish tongue. That I think the case being pursued by Apple shouldn't be actionable is neither here nor there.
Which appears to be exactly what you are doing.
Just because Samsung makes the screen it does not mean they own the IP involved.
Do you not understand that statment?
I haven't said that Foxconn design and invent anything - read it again - I said manufacture - as in assemble or put together.
Foxconn is not out (I think) to compete with Apple. They are quite happy to rake in money from massive year-on-year build contracts.
While Samsung does not own Apple's IP or IP that Apple sublicenses, but since it is the contract manufacturer, it has key access to stuff which helps it reverse engineer and thus avoid patent issues. Apple probably are throwing public-/investor-smoke-and-mirrors to look relevant/less diminished. It very well might turn out that Samsung is TOO close for Apple's comfort but not actually breaking too many or any significant IP laws. If Samsung is smart (and, I think they are), they fully and carefully documented everything knowing this day could and would come. They may be sitting on things just to make Apple huff and puff and invest in PR waves and overtime pay for the already-retained legal counsel.
It is obvious from Apple's reaction to the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that it considers it a serious competitor to the iPad. I just hope (i) the courts will see Apple's claim for what it is, and (b) not give them any leave to appeal.
FFS Apple, just give the consumer what it wants instead of trying to stop them getting it.
Then why is the Samsung equivalent often priced higher that the Fondleslab?
Why are HTC phones so expensive?
Why are so many Android devices still shipping with obsolete software and no chance of a makers upgrade?
What am I to do if I'm not willing (or able) to flash the phone with a new version?
I own none of the above or anything but an old iPod. I am looking for a new phone as my Sony-Ericcson POS is on its last legs. I was shocked at the price of HTC phones? Then the Galaxy Tab 2 was more expensive than an iPad.
Not everone in the world wants to root their phone/tablet or to have to do all sorts of tricks to update the OS. It is likely that this may be the majority of users. Then the Apple ecosystem looks very attractive.
"They believe we all want Apple products and only buy alternatives because we're too poor to afford them."
if that was really the case then surely apple wouldn't care about the "cheap copies..."
the real truth of the matter is apple, and many other companies, once they come up with a product they don't want anyone else to make a competing product. Since apple produced the iphone it tool a couple of years for the rest to come up with a realistic alternative and the same has happened with the ipad. .... and they don't like it !!
mines the one without the apple products in the pockets.
Hmm,
Amazing how the 'tards lack a grasp or reality, basic economics or the ability to research/read.
1: Apple is the market leader, by a long way. Suggesting that they do not "give the customer what it wants" (sic) is patently idiotic.
2: The Galaxy IS a blatant copy of the iPhone in most impartial eyes, incl. mine. Smartphones looked/functioned different before Apple came along and Samsung just copied. Whether this is enforceable in law is another question. If it is, Samsung will be dealt with accordingly.
Personally, I have no issues with a producer (Apple, IBM, HP, Oracle or whoever) protecting their patents, copyrights, trade marks or whatever they have available to them, in order to stop the Asian copy-cat manufacturers.
Come and live in Asia for a while and you will understand how clueless you all are.
Copying (i.e. theft of intellectual property and trade marks) is rampant her, and things have not improved over the past decade, things are getting worse, as asian companies boldly and imperiously steal whatever they wish. Few are prosecuted.
S. Korean companies are far from the worst - China holds that record by a country mile. Any company that places a factory in China, de facto cedes all their IPR to the Chinese. This is a fact, and there are a zillion companies in the west suffering for it, while China rakes in trillions from the theft.
These are the facts on the ground. Pretending Apple is the villian is fucking moronic and ignorant.
Dweeb
Impartial eyes might also concede that Samsung's current models have evolved over the last 4 or 5 years and had their genesis in Samsung designs -- designs which were influenced by things like the XDA, iPaq and the obviousness of putting a phone into a Palm Lifedrive. Apple did not create the iPhone in a world where those other products never existed, so let's allow everyone else to be influenced by the things which influenced Apple and to use the materials which are available to Apple. And remember that, even though the iPhone was Apple's first phone (because nobody mentions the Motorola E790) and therefore had no pedigree, it was an evolution rather than a revolution.
If the first company to come to market with a stereo TV had stopped anyone else from releasing similar products then where would we be now? I could say the same for many other products (cars with roofs, toasters with defrost buttons, etc) and, if you accept that the iPhone is just a phone and not a product class itself then you will not have a problem with other companies competing with phones in the same way as they do with TVs.
If the first stereo TV was called an "sTV" instead of CR-923-L or whatever, then people might have declared the 2nd stereo TV to be an "sTV" rip-off, and built a cult around it. The CR-923-L is just a type of TV whereas the sTV is something new altogether! But most of us can see that it's just a marketing thing, which is where Apple exceeds (that and patent trolling).
Maybe Mercedes Benz should sue all other car manufactures for infringing their Intellectual Properties. After all Karl Benz is regarded to have invented the car as we know it today.
Apple just want to protect their market share and huge profit margins. Apple have more cash the the USA Treasury Department with $76.4 Billion. Greed is good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470
All tablets look like miniature flat panel TVs with a smoothed back “or walkmanned”. They all use a mixture of button touches similar to 1980s touchscreen computers updated to touches that emulate modern mouse controls. I really don’t think they offer enough to be classed as inventions. They are the product of what modern technology can do with ideas that couldn’t be fully realised in the 80s. Patents shouldn’t be given so easily. Apples strength is just a case of America protecting its own.
Maybe because Apple's market research and usability studies indicated that the iPad size is optimal for a tablet device.
Seems like they were right, judging by everyone elses mad, belated rush to produce 10" devices after their 7" devices failed to takeover the world.
Dweeb
This isn't a 'tablet' market here, it is an 'iPad' market. You can't compete with something that isn't basically an iPad, because people want iPads.
Nobody really wants a tablet; this isn't like the iPhone where everyone was crying out for a smartphone that wasn't bloody awful, and now the benchmark has been set everyone is happy with their new less-awful smartphones.
...........in the market place is generally selective for very sound practical reasons when it comes to starting IP disputes. It is very often the case that such a company confines aggressive legal action to occasions where the breach is especially egregious, where the breach is such that they believe that they have a very good chance of winning and where they believe that they risk serious financial damage if they do *not* take action. I simply pose the question. What does Apple's current campaign against Samsung say about Apple's self-confidence with regard to their capacity to "beat" the opposition in the market place rather than the courtroom?
AC 10:35: "I am actually guessing that Apple has filed a patent in Australia, but hey I have been qrong before."
Indeed that may well be so, however, as I understand it, 'look and Feel' is not patentable, it is a copyright issue. I know the USofA made a bold attempt some time back to get Oz to change its patent laws to get them inline with the stupid US ones, but I think they failed. I surely hope they did.
If there was something tangable and truly unique then fine, I'll allow it. But these vague patents are absolutue crap. for example a recently won patent by apple against HTC "a system and method for performing an action on a structure in a computer" filed in 1997, and probably infringed by any device with an OS.
How are they allowed to be processed?!
It's like me patenting crossing the road using your legs or arms? Mind you that won't stifle creativity in the way apples patents do... I'm thinking mouth controled jet packs! Applying for the patent tomorrow.
Maybe Mercedes should wise up and start suing every car manufacturer that uses 4 wheels and a steering wheel, because is has the same look and feel as their IP.
"I know the USofA made a bold attempt some time back to get Oz to change its patent laws to get them inline with the stupid US ones, but I think they failed. I surely hope they did."
John Howard ( the little useless prick ) gave away our rights to the US when he signed the very one sided Australia / US free trade agreement.....the only one getting it all for free is the US....as usual the lib's shafted Australia in order to appease their big business mates.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
