Apple ordered to run "Samsung didn't copy iPad" ads, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 11:44 AM by BMorris

Apple will just twist the judgement to benefit them.

Samsung didn't copy the iPad, but the iPad is best, the judge said so,

They are very good at that.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 04:35 PM by FidelityMusic

reply to post by antonia

Many people that aren't so tech savvy actually do. The person I was replying to said he uses his iPod only for his music.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:33 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by BMorris
Apple will just twist the judgement to benefit them.

Samsung didn't copy the iPad, but the iPad is best, the judge said so,

They are very good at that.

Probably.

I think the companies of tomorrow will avoid the over litigious behavior, and instead differentiate themselves (if even only in spin). If you are the number 1, like Apple, you don't even acknowledge the Galaxy. And if you do, you treat it as an inferior product, or the "cute efforts" of an amateur.

If Apple was smart, they would do this. Instead, they are overly sensitive. When Bill Gates stole the design for Windows from Apple, they seemed to have learned to be gunshy.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:48 PM by peck420

Now that Samsung is starting to win some of the legal battles, what is Apple going to do?

A couple more patent wins for Sammy and I doubt they will still supply Apple CPU's...

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 08:51 PM by proteus33

i personally do not use i anything. all this crap stems from bill gates jacking the lisa program years ago and reworking it into windows so now they say they created everything. too me apple went from a neat innovative Minnesota start up too a mega giant super greedy corporation . unfortunately i got my 6 year old asking for an ipad for christmas i hope to get her a kindle or samsung instead she already has a nice laptop and she loves to read with me so i thing i will get the kindle fire and load all the wizard of oz books by frank baum on it. all our phones used to be blackberries but now all are android . nothing apple i stuff does cant be done better by other stuff out there. now if they could make a hand held that has a flexible hd screen that can roll up in device i am going to avoid them like plaque ps i dont want to agree to their terms of service and end up a human ipad like stan did in south park bwa haha ha.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:40 PM by TheEnlightenedOne

This made me laugh like I have never laughed before in my life!!!
That happens when you start thinking you invented every shape in the world!

Now, I said it before and I am saying it again, Apple is going down and the Android will prevail at last!

edit on 19-7-2012 by TheEnlightenedOne because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:05 PM by knightwhosaysnih

Originally posted by randomname
portable music players aren't original, cell phones aren't original

I beg to differ, sir! iPhone 3gs was the first decent touchscreen phone on the market, and was nothing but original. The first iPhone was ok, but it was insanely slow.

I dislike Apple's morals and standards as much as the next person, but like someone said in an earlier post.. It is the best available. Zune & Galaxy don't come close to the iPod.

Overall I'm glad to see Apple get taken down a few notches, they definitely needed to get their heads out their asses, stop trying to sue anything that walks and just focus on innovating & cool new gasgets.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:13 PM by Kapkalna

reply to post by GLaDOS

I can just imagine how embarrassed Apple is right now.

Not at all. It's all a game. Have you heard of the Church of Scientology? All they are is a legal department. en.wikipedia.org...

www.techdirt.com... no-reason-to-sue.shtml I don't know why the full link doesn't fit. The judge of the Apple Motorola case discusses how both parties have deep pockets and neither can prove their claims in court. He is also well aware that he's being played as a pawn in their battle for smartphone dominance. newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com...

If even the judge cant take this seriously, I dont see why you would.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:32 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by Kapkalna

Because what is and is not patentable is what really hangs in the balance here.

take the Nike symbol. Is it really something that is "intellectual property"? It literally litters the landscape of my world. I have no choice whether or not i see it. It is part of my environment. Like a tree, I can't take more than a few steps without seeing one. How would you trademark a tree (I'm looking at you Doubletree Suites, LOL)?

I know it seems silly, but my point is the Nike symbol is a symbol that has so saturated the world that we now have an entire generation that hasn't known a single day without Nike. And, like I said, it is literally everywhere.

The irony to me is that the one thing that their symbols are meant to do (drive brand recognition) is also what kind of makes their claim of trademark (or patent....how many times in a day do I have to hear Gotye before I can be free of the torture?) seem unreasonable.

Patent law is something that is far, far outdated. And we are at a point where all we see are arguments over subtle nuances.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 11:09 PM by daynight42

This is a very nice blow to the company, where it really hurts. Image is everything today.

So far in the last 2 days, I'd seen to amazing ad campaigns:

1) this one
2) the one with the guy forcing people to see the truth about how Israel swallowed up land that has always belonged to the Palestinians (Pro-Palestinian Ads Ignite Firestorm Of Controversy , page 1)

I can only hope more of these techniques (a GOOD propaganda) are used to shed light on the lying scum that are trying to take over.

reply posted on 20-7-2012 @ 12:11 AM by navy_vet_stg3

Google should be forced to run adds saying "We stole Java and got away with it." I'm glad the judge ruled in favor of Samsung on this, as I think Apple has made way too much off of stealing other people's stuff, just like Google.

reply posted on 20-7-2012 @ 12:20 AM by TheAnarchist

Apple would copyright and sue for ownership of rectangles and human hands if they could find a lawyer stupid enough to back them. They've become more fascist and overbearing than Microsoft used to be - and that's saying something

reply posted on 20-7-2012 @ 01:09 AM by Kapkalna

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Because what is and is not patentable is what really hangs in the balance here.

The judge said its about proving damages, which neither party can demonstrate. Google must show its brand name has taken a hit, which the judge said cannot be demonstrated due to the size of the company.

I'm not about to follow you into your nike logo analogy. None of this can be discussed until the court system draws up new plans for technology patents.

reply posted on 20-7-2012 @ 03:45 AM by McGinty

I started using Apple back in the 90s and was soon a devotee.

However, they've gone from being the user/consumer friendly alternative to Microsoft, to superseding Microsoft as the world's leading exploiter of consumer cash.

They used to make things that last, but now they continually release new tech (e.g Powermac to Intel and now thunderbolt) that makes your massive investment redundant. They don't like to provide means of updating since they'd prefer you to buy the whole kit all over again.

I find myself moving, for the first time, to Microsoft these days, as you can easily replace parts with such innovations.

ETA: On topic though, surely right and wrong in such patent issues would be the same in the UK as in the US