[Ocassus]

(Original post by . . .)
Apple originally copied samsung.

Dude... Check your bloody sources..





Design wise they are virtually nothing alike.

[DaveSmith99]

Some people are so blinded by their hate for apple its hilarious.

[f1mad]

(Original post by . . .)
Very childish justification.

"Why did you do it?"
"Everybody else was doing it..."
*followed by the inevitable jump off a cliff analogy*

Justification? Are you a ****ing moron?

That's how the game works, and they all play it.

Looks up some of the recent cases before commenting.

[f1mad]

(Original post by . . .)
Apple originally copied samsung.

In the letter of the law, no they did not.

Else, Samsung would've sewed their asses by now.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Ocassus)


Dude... Check your bloody sources..





Design wise they are virtually nothing alike.

Bless.

[Jeester]

Dunno if this is true...:

[f1mad]

(Original post by Jeester)
Dunno if this is true...:

Quit whilst you're ahead kiddo, that game is useless and a waste of time.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Jeester)
Dunno if this is true...:

Hmm...

I wonder why that happened?


Well lets think... What interface did Bill Gates tablet PC use? OH YEAH! A stylus. What OS did it use? Uhhhhhm I think it was a reaaaaaally slow version of windows, poorly optimised aswell. Was it well designed? No it was made out of plastic and had a notoriously terrible battery. Was it useful for ANYTHING? Well no, not really. It didn't serve its purpose as a mobile computer because it couldn't do what a netbook could do.

The iPad? Hmmm, the most advanced multitouch ever seen in the industry thusfar? A specific target niche between phone and laptop? A massive development base for their proprietary OS developing apps specifically for that device?

Hmm, the Microsoft Surface? Well all the GOOD things it takes as 'innovations' are taken directly from the Apple iPad, the only good 'innovation' that the iPad took from the tablet PC was a device with no keyboard and dominated by a screen (It still had buttons for cripes sake). The Surface hasn't really done anything brand new...

[prog2djent]

Apple hate the free market.

[Mad Vlad]

Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon, so I'm not going to single out an individual manufacturer here because everyone's suing everyone else. It's ridiculous. The people who are missing out are the consumers because the patent system can sometimes stifle creativity and innovation - especially in markets such as this. After all, how many shapes can you make a phone or a tablet out of? The styling is so genericised now, it's virtually impossible to design something new. And with large companies buying up the patents for everything conceivable, we're running out of new ways to skin the cat, so to speak.

I'm all for people protecting their intellectual property, but I just don't get how you can patent something as basic as a black rectangle with round corners, or navigating up and down a page using the page up and page down keys, for instance. It's just nonsense.

[Paradoxical]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Hmm...

I wonder why that happened?


Well lets think... What interface did Bill Gates tablet PC use? OH YEAH! A stylus. What OS did it use? Uhhhhhm I think it was a reaaaaaally slow version of windows, poorly optimised aswell. Was it well designed? No it was made out of plastic and had a notoriously terrible battery. Was it useful for ANYTHING? Well no, not really. It didn't serve its purpose as a mobile computer because it couldn't do what a netbook could do.

The iPad? Hmmm, the most advanced multitouch ever seen in the industry thusfar? A specific target niche between phone and laptop? A massive development base for their proprietary OS developing apps specifically for that device?

Hmm, the Microsoft Surface? Well all the GOOD things it takes as 'innovations' are taken directly from the Apple iPad, the only good 'innovation' that the iPad took from the tablet PC was a device with no keyboard and dominated by a screen (It still had buttons for cripes sake). The Surface hasn't really done anything brand new...

I'm intrigued how one can write so much bullcrap in one post.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon, so I'm not going to single out an individual manufacturer here because everyone's suing everyone else. It's ridiculous. The people who are missing out are the consumers because the patent system can sometimes stifle creativity and innovation - especially in markets such as this. After all, how many shapes can you make a phone or a tablet out of? The styling is so genericised now, it's virtually impossible to design something new. And with large companies buying up the patents for everything conceivable, we're running out of new ways to skin the cat, so to speak.

I'm all for people protecting their intellectual property, but I just don't get how you can patent something as basic as a black rectangle with round corners, or navigating up and down a page using the page up and page down keys, for instance. It's just nonsense.

I disagree with that, although having such broad patents does have some pitfalls at least one descriptions you gave is grossly exaggerated.

Microsoft patented a formula for scrolling and reviewing documents via the Pg keys which is either something their developers came up with or someone else did and decided to sell their idea to Microsoft, it is in essence a perfectly reasonable thing to patent.

Yes companies go overboard sometimes but having broad patents when it comes to these fields stops the situation of someone inventing something brilliant and then every big company scrambling to make an identical product for cheaper. I would argue it not only encourages innovation but forces it as companies must invest considerable amounts into genuine R&D to remain competitive.

[. . .]

(Original post by f1mad)
Justification? Are you a ****ing moron?

That's how the game works, and they all play it.

Looks up some of the recent cases before commenting.

Doesn't make what they are doing right. As Mad Vlad stated all this patenting is stifling innovation and creativity. Although I do agree with you people have been copying each other for a very long time but come on some of the things they are attempting to patent or have patented is just ridiculous.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Paradoxical)
I'm intrigued how one can write so much bullcrap in one post.

Perhaps you can explain to me where the bullcrap lies?


Also, isn't the Microsoft Surface pure vaporware at this moment in time?

[Ocassus]

(Original post by . . .)
Doesn't make what they are doing right. As Mad Vlad stated all this patenting is stifling innovation and creativity. Although I do agree with you people have been copying each other for a very long time but come on some of the things they are attempting to patent or have patented is just ridiculous.

If I come up with something cool, I expect it to be protected, atleast from people outright copying it.

The 'Natural scrolling' was invented by a guy sitting in the Apple HQ in the 90s, it was there to demonstrate his proficiency with code, he hasn't left apple since and pretty much every touch device incorporates this inertial scrolling into its software. It is HIS idea, and not that of Apples. If he allows Apple to use that idea, then that is his prerogative. There is a reason that many patents are filed under persons names and not corporations names. Steve had 313 patents to his name, Jony Ive, Apples VP of industrial design, has over 600 patents to his name.

[. . .]

(Original post by Ocassus)
If I come up with something cool, I expect it to be protected, atleast from people outright copying it.

The 'Natural scrolling' was invented by a guy sitting in the Apple HQ in the 90s, it was there to demonstrate his proficiency with code, he hasn't left apple since and pretty much every touch device incorporates this inertial scrolling into its software. It is HIS idea, and not that of Apples. If he allows Apple to use that idea, then that is his prerogative. There is a reason that many patents are filed under persons names and not corporations names. Steve had 313 patents to his name, Jony Ive, Apples VP of industrial design, has over 600 patents to his name.

Protecting your ideas are essential. There is no denying that but going out right crazy and patenting or attempting to patent practically everything is just stupid. I mean they even attempted to do it against amazon for use of the word "app store". Surely that's going abit over the top.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by . . .)
Protecting your ideas are essential. There is no denying that but going out right crazy and patenting or attempting to patent practically everything is just stupid. I mean they even attempted to do it against amazon for use of the word "app store". Surely that's going abit over the top.

The term 'App' is essentially a trademark of Apple for reasons I don't really have to explain. In addition, it is a perfectly legitimate concern for apple to have that a competing store have exactly the same name as their own.

[Supertoaster]

The whole patent war is stupid and I think it needs changing to an extent, instead of protecting intellectual property it is ending up slowing down new technology.

[Marlo Stanfield]

(Original post by Ocassus)
The term 'App' is essentially a trademark of Apple for reasons I don't really have to explain. In addition, it is a perfectly legitimate concern for apple to have that a competing store have exactly the same name as their own.

App refers to application.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Marlo Stanfield)
App refers to application.

Yes thanks for telling me something I already knew.

You know Wi-Fi is a trademark too right? It actually means wireless fidelity, you can't use wifi on a product without legal recourse with them first.

Same deal goes with 'App', a shortened version of the word 'Application'.