Australian Appeals Court Reviewing Galaxy Tab Sales Ban

So I make a copycat product and start selling it in Australia around October and when Apple sues my company, I would want the judge to appeal that it will hurt my business as well as business of retailers in Australia.

Please allow me to infringe on IP and make copy cat products. Please.

Since Android's development started more than four years before Apple even ANNOUNCED the iPhone, and Android was even offered to Apple before they introduced iPhone OS/iOS, I really, really wonder who's the real copycat here. Common sense tells me that Android can hardly be the copycat, especially not when it took Apple five MAJOR releases to introduce features that Android had right from the beginning.

Ah, you're talking about the hardware design? Rounded corners? You mean that rounded corner's concept that Steve Jobs stole from TRAFFIC SIGNS back in the early 1980s when the Lisa and Macintosh teams at Apple were busy stealing the idea of the graphical user interface from the Xerox Star?

Or do you mean the entire design concept that we could all already see in 2001: A Space Odyssey or Star Trek and that all simple digital frames had already had long before there even was an iPad on the market?

Really, it's not that Apple were the first ones to come up with ANY of that stuff. They created a well engineered, well designed product family. But, as we say in Germany, "es ist nicht auf ihrem Mist gewachsen" -- it didn't grow on their dung. Like everybody else in the industry, they're standing on the shoulder's of other giants and mostly just IMPROVED what others had already invented.

Yes, Apple puts a lot of culture in their products and make them feel 'unique' - but that is not always for the better. Just look at that annoyance that Apple calls "synchronization", which in their language means wiping out the target device while in everybody else's language it means bringing both the target and the source to the same levels by copying stuff in both directions.

Using words like "copycats" is just stupid Apple marketing blah like their overuse of superlatives like "awesome, revolutionary, magical, beautiful". But I admit that it never fails to amaze me how well their brainwashing works with their target audience. But at the end of the day, it was all just a shallow sales pitch.

Apple's came first, then Samsung's.

Image (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8166/110624samsungknockoffs2.jpg)

Where was Samsung's big January 2010 tablet unveiling? You know, the one where it would be the Samsung CEO sitting comfortably in that easy-chair giving the keynote and astounding the tech world. Or Samsung's opportunity in 2007 to say via their CEO in a landmark keynote "It's an iPod (well, not for Sammy), a phone, and an internet communicator . . . an iPod, a phone, and internet communicator . . ."

What happened? All these game-changers, after which competing devices all began to look like them, (with some people not even being able to tell them apart: //www.macrumors.com/2011/10/14/samsung-lawyers-also-struggle-to-tell-ipad-and-galaxy-tab-apart/) have Apple logos on the back.

Samsung should look up "first-mover" somewhere. They should try it for a change.

Very misleading picture, they should show the homescreen on the Galaxy and not app drawer. Once again, you fail to post relevantly due to your blindness.

So I make a copycat product and start selling it in Australia around October and when Apple sues my company, I would want the judge to appeal that it will hurt my business as well as business of retailers in Australia.

Please allow me to infringe on IP and make copy cat products. Please.

3 things wrong with your post. This lawsuit isn't about "copying" or design, it's about patents for hardware and software. Also, both sides have cited issues with patent infringement yet only Apple was granted an injunction. Finally, Samsung has not been found to infringe on the Apple patents yet, the trial is in March.

Facts, don't let them get in the way of a good bashing uh ?

Edit : gah should always stay logged in, that way my ignore list stays in effect and I don't see these posts by people who have a tendency for heavily biased rants wit no root in reality.

So I make a copycat product and start selling it in Australia around October and when Apple sues my company, I would want the judge to appeal that it will hurt my business as well as business of retailers in Australia.

Please allow me to infringe on IP and make copy cat products. Please.

Why not wait until the trial, and if Samsung are found to have infringed, THEN come down like a tonne of bricks on them?

Even if Samsung win the case, and Apple are forced to pay some penalty for the injunction, it still keeps Samsung out of the market, and adds a huge amount of doubt to Samsung shareholders & potential investors.

I'm not really a fan of punishment based on accusation.

Maybe this article can explain it a bit:

http://mobile.osnews.com/printer.php?news_id=25264

Still, I don't understand, why Android doesn't have 90 % of market, when it was developed earlier and was so better than iPhone... If they had top product, why they didn't release it as first?

And? I was only saying that there were touch only prototypes, not only the bb ones as you implied.

----------

....

And this has to do with the thread exactly how?

that's the app drawer open on the samsung phone. Apple was called out for that in the hearing, they said this is how samsung phones always look when they don't. very misleading picture.

Re: Australian Injunction

There were just two Apple patents at question for the interlocutory injunction. (There had been three, but Apple withdrew their slide-to-unlock one after the Netherlands judge on the other side of the world said it was probably not a valid patent.)

One was about the construction of a capacitive touchscreen. The patent speaks of painting circuits on both sides of a sheet of material. Samsung says they didn't do that because they used two separate sheets. Apple tried to claim that they didn't necessarily mean both sides of the SAME sheet. The judge didn't think much of Apple's new interpretation, since the patent claims didn't mention that situation, but she was willing to defer for the time being.

The other patent is the one about deciding whether to lock scrolling to only vertical, or to allow 2D movements, depending on the starting flick angle. The judge questioned the same claim writing that I did when it came out, which was: does the patent cover a way of determining the angle or not?

Since the judge determined that no one could agree on what Apple's ambiguous patent claims meant, even experts that were brought in, she decided that the only choice was to continue to trial.

Re: Andy Rubin et al

When you've been in the business this long, you know that the reason the same ideas show up everywhere is partly because the same people keep popping up everywhere. Their talents are why they're hired by various companies, and naturally they bring their ideas with them.

Instead of admiring companies, device fans should be admiring the engineers that have built the basic ideas that everyone uses... whether they work for their favorite company right now or not.

Re: Xerox

Jobs didn't understand the Mac project and tried to kill it. He had to be dragged over to see the Xerox stuff. Once he did, he loved the idea of a GUI(even though he admits he didn't pay any attention to the just as amazing object oriented software or inter-networking).

However, Apple never paid Xerox anything directly. They gave Xerox the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock, which Xerox later did... and then sold a couple of years later.

In return, Xerox gave Apple a license to make a single device, the Lisa. Apple later claimed that anything done after that belonged to them, not Xerox, which is what caused Xerox to sue them.

echo selective | sed -e "s;s;d;g" -e "s;l;f;g"

Grr, don't you just hate pre-school level regular expressions, especially used unnecessarily in smartypants comments. Here, optimised that for you:

echo selective | sed -e "y;sl;df;"

----------

When I was younger, manufacturers protected their intelectual property by other methods like avoiding in-house espionage or producing good products which production was hard to reproduce. When competitors could be able to reproduce the technology, it was already commoditized.

You must be incredibly old then, since manufacturers have been using patents and other registrations since 1449. Didn't realise we had immortals wandering the forums.

Yes, I admit it Apple didn't invent patents.

Please would you name the features? I'm really interested :))

Have you seen first Android phone? Why today's phones don't look like it?

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/607064683d89c69ec3d135d46fe35925.jpg

You were saying? That HTC prototype was based on one of HTC's WindowsMobile handsets.

Android is software, designed to run on many devices be they touchscreened phones, QWERTY phones, tablets, smartbooks, vehicle entertainment, media players, tv's, set top boxes, watches and so on.

It's pretty easy to figure out from what Android was. Andy Rubin created Android after just jumping ship from Danger Inc (the creators of the T-Mobile Sidekick)

Both Android and Danger's Hiptop (Sidekick) are based on Java frameworks plus a Unix kernel.

As far as how it looked we all have seen the prototype photo.

Interestingly even the Magic Cap project - the Apple spin-off where Rubin worked before eventually moving to Danger - was already using downloadable "app" packages developed in a something very similar to Java.

So the concepts haven't really diverged that much since 1992.

So no, you don't have any inside info and you're only guessing

----------

What some of you are forgetting is that before iPhone was announced to the public, Google had a mole inside Apple in Eric Schmidt, who had seen prototypes and design philosophy from years of prior Apple research (obviously they didn't just start working on the iPhone a month before it was released). Thus, Google would have had time to start working on things which later appeared in the iPhone, but that does not mean they didn't get the ideas from Apple. That's why Jobs had a nuclear meltdown over it, he knew what Schmidt had seen and felt he'd been knifed in the back by a friend.

What you are forgetting is that Google bought Android in 2.005.

Perhaps you think Jobs, Cook and all the people at Apple were so stupid to just don't know that and ask Schmidt to go to the board