2012-08-28, 09:05 PM
2012-08-28, 09:22 PM
Are you freaking kidding me...
2012-08-28, 09:23 PM
Apple must have not patented reflections on a glass dock.
2012-08-28, 09:36 PM
> Looks at avatar
> Looks at thread
* Crayo giggles.
> Looks at thread
* Crayo giggles.
2012-08-28, 09:41 PM
Yes I'm a fanboy and proud of it 
2012-08-28, 10:50 PM
right, because docks haven't existed with this exact functionality for years
do you ever think about what you post or just aimlessly defend apple?
do you ever think about what you post or just aimlessly defend apple?
2012-08-29, 01:38 AM
(2012-08-28, 10:50 PM)Scoutie44 Wrote: [ -> ]right, because docks haven't existed with this exact functionality for years
Come on man, this is a clear aping of Apple's visual style. I refuse to believe they couldn't come up with something else -- especially when you consider that Apple using this style is relatively recent.
2012-08-29, 02:18 AM
(2012-08-29, 01:38 AM)brad-t Wrote: [ -> ]Couldn't have said it better. Samsung could have AT LEAST made it a semitransparent black.(2012-08-28, 10:50 PM)Scoutie44 Wrote: [ -> ]right, because docks haven't existed with this exact functionality for years
Come on man, this is a clear aping of Apple's visual style. I refuse to believe they couldn't come up with something else -- especially when you consider that Apple using this style is relatively recent.
2012-08-29, 02:40 AM
I read the blog post and it all reminds me of this image:
http://jerkmag.files.wordpress.com/2012/...0-2012.jpg
Yes its a copy and yes its another thing they copy from samsung.. but the problem with this all is. You hardly can make something unique now a days anymore. That hasnt been patented, that hasnt been tought off.
And while apple fans like to think apple invented everything its not really true. One thing i have to say though is the fact that since there have been countless of rip offs of the docking station for windows systems now for years. I would find it rather weak if apple now because samsung doing it would suddenly jump up.
About the 1 million dollar .. lets not talk about how bad this trial was. Im not defending Samsung but if you read up how the trial went... its almost shamefull and proves you shouldnt let people rule over something they have no understanding off. And also dont have any legal background.
http://tweakers.net/reacties.dsp?Action=...ID=5754962
You would have to find something to translate the above to english from dutch.
Nice part out of the information from the jury is this:
Simply comes down to the fact they threw aside crucial effidence from samsungs defence aside since and i quote: "so we could go on faster"
but reading that really makes me go.. /sigh
Ah well it to me proves patents are still something that dont work in their current form anymore. And are a block for innovation and not a blessing.
http://jerkmag.files.wordpress.com/2012/...0-2012.jpg
Yes its a copy and yes its another thing they copy from samsung.. but the problem with this all is. You hardly can make something unique now a days anymore. That hasnt been patented, that hasnt been tought off.
And while apple fans like to think apple invented everything its not really true. One thing i have to say though is the fact that since there have been countless of rip offs of the docking station for windows systems now for years. I would find it rather weak if apple now because samsung doing it would suddenly jump up.
About the 1 million dollar .. lets not talk about how bad this trial was. Im not defending Samsung but if you read up how the trial went... its almost shamefull and proves you shouldnt let people rule over something they have no understanding off. And also dont have any legal background.
http://tweakers.net/reacties.dsp?Action=...ID=5754962
You would have to find something to translate the above to english from dutch.
Nice part out of the information from the jury is this:
Quote:Jurylid Manuel Ilagan: "It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art -- because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
Simply comes down to the fact they threw aside crucial effidence from samsungs defence aside since and i quote: "so we could go on faster"
but reading that really makes me go.. /sigh
Ah well it to me proves patents are still something that dont work in their current form anymore. And are a block for innovation and not a blessing.
2012-08-29, 02:56 AM
They skipped it to come back to it later. They obviously had to complete that. Whether or not you agree with the jury's decision, that's how a jury works, and both Apple and Samsung insisted that this come to a head in court. Samsung has to live with the consequences.
This dock copy has nothing to do with the fact that it's a dock and everything to do with the fact that it's designed to look nearly identical to Apple's implementation.
As for that image ... the Surface has more in common with the iPad than the iPad or Surface has in common with the original tablet. The iPad's success revolves around the user paradigms, not the fact that it has a touch screen. Come on man. That's a non-touch-optimized Windows XP running on a huge slab that requires a stylus. That has almost nothing in common with the iPad.
(That said, the Surface is cool, and while it's certainly a response to the iPad it's nowhere close to a copy.)
This dock copy has nothing to do with the fact that it's a dock and everything to do with the fact that it's designed to look nearly identical to Apple's implementation.
As for that image ... the Surface has more in common with the iPad than the iPad or Surface has in common with the original tablet. The iPad's success revolves around the user paradigms, not the fact that it has a touch screen. Come on man. That's a non-touch-optimized Windows XP running on a huge slab that requires a stylus. That has almost nothing in common with the iPad.
(That said, the Surface is cool, and while it's certainly a response to the iPad it's nowhere close to a copy.)