Again, Apple would sue anyone that creates a product that might be deemed “better” than what they offer.  Apple’s demands are ridiculous and I’m glad to see that the higher courts are overruling the previous verdicts. 

Why hasn’t Apple gone after other all-in-one computer makers such as HP, Dell, Compaq, etc. for stealing intellectual design and property of their iMac series?  Because, those systems aren’t selling well enough to threaten their iMac sales.  The fact that they’re so doggedly pursuing Samsung tells me that they’re afraid of losing ground to Samsung.  

The funny thing is, if you want an Apple product, you simply look for the Apple logo.  It’s not like Samsung’s sticking Apple logos on their product.  Anyone can tell a non-Apple product from an Apple product. 

To claim that their design was “slavishly copied” is not only a gross misstatement but an obvious lie. 

 Either way, I’ll be glad when all these companies stop suing each other (especially the patent trolls that keep popping up out of the wood works every other day now) and start building tech that the consumers want.  Let the consumers decide – we’ll buy what we want, not because we’re told to purchase something because no other competition can exist!

I say apple road the evolutionary gravy train by joining in on the first wave of ARM based tablets.  Because they were ARM, they didn’t have to be thick and clunky.  also, because they were ARM, they could use smaller batteries and use better screens, since they did not have to worry about x86 heat wrecking the screen.  The rectangular slate form had already been in use by compaq for years, but never caught on due to windows xp  and vista sucking on a touchscreen only device.  Apple’s OS was touch based from the get go, so they could run with the slate style with no regrets.
They managed to get the Ipad out and steal the thunder of many a different manufacturer, as the others such as Crunchpad, NotionInk, and such lacked the warchest of apple to develop as fast.  Also, most competition wanted to wait till the cortex a9 was in higher circulation before releasing.  the Only manufacturers that managed to get into the fray other then apple and stand a chance was Samsung, HP (palm),  and Barnes&noble(though they weren’t technically a tablet).  HP screwed the pooch and ended up getting the touchpad delayed for a long time, eventually making it pathetic against motorola and company.  Barnes & Noble stuck to their game and have made bank.  And then we have Samsung.

As this market grows though, and the second wave of tablet adoption takes place, apple will be in serious trouble, as they don’t innovate nearly as fast as their competition, and risk getting blown away if google will start leveraging it’s muscle.

these lawsuits are the same stuff they tried to do against microsoft, and that ended in a complete disaster.  This is why I think that apple is trying so hard to bring down samsung, else history will repeat and apple will loose the momentum they have had since the success of the IPod.   If apple rebrands itself into a lifestyle company and decides to go the way of Prada, Gucci, and Rolex, that is the only way I can see it surviving as a company. There is too much money to be made and if their competition was to seriously attempt it, they could cause alot of hurt to the fruit company (like cutting off chip shipments, not licencing new tech, poaching employees, and various other forms of blackballing.

TLDR version:  Apple has been riding the evolutionary coattails of tech and risks becoming irrelevant again once the next paradigm shift in tech happens again.  they are using the legal system to keep the gravy train rolling. If they want to survive, completing their transition to a form of fashion brand for consumer electronics is the only way forward. Other wise the competition will eventually eat their lunch.

This is the most ridiculous, stupid, moronic stuff I’ve heard from Apple yet.

The  Samsung’s legal rep could not tell them apart in court WHEN UNPOWERED, AT A GLANCE FROM A DISTANCE.Arguably, the same could be said of ALL current ARM-based tablets.

Of the two, the attorney, who had not seen or looked at either before, was asked to glance and tell the difference.

She couldn’t.  Granted, it was at a glance from a fairly distant area. THIS IS WHAT MARTIN LEAVES OUT.  See, if you put a Sony, an LG, a Samsung and a Panasonic TV of the same distance at a glance?  The chance is great that you’re not going to pick them out from a distance either.

Either way?  There are distinguishable differences between both tablets.  ESPECIALLY WHEN POWERED ON.

Tablets just had more functions and possibilities before the iPad came out!

These lawsuits have convinced me to boycott all Apple products, and to continue to oppose deployment of Apple products in the company where I hold part ownership. As someone who is frequently consulted for technical advice, I will advise people to avoid Apple products, as well.

You can change the focus of the discussion by redirecting but it doesn’t make you right.

For one, prior art exists exhibiting the patent’s primary goals (43 years prior!), and for two, when a device being designed consists of a giant LCD and the overriding goal is to exploit that to its logical conclusion there’s only a couple ways you can make it. Case in point, look at LCD monitors! For the better part of a decade they’ve looked like the iPad (small bezel, black plastic, minimal branding, minimal physical user input). If they were patenting the concept of a tablet, it would be entirely different (and again, anyone could point to 2001: A Space Odyssey for prior art nullifying the non-obviousness of the claim) but they patented the design!

Fundamentally, this is an attempt to own the /concept/ of a tablet computer through their patent on the /design/ of a tablet computer. The fact that Apple is arguing on the basis of color of plastic just goes to prove how ridiculous this is in the first place

What I didn’t say however, is that they should own that design. While the iPad paved the way for tablets, I don’t think that they should be awarded bans due to its outside appearance (to a certain extent). Their suggestions on how to make other tablets less iPad like are flat out ridiculous- and funny. 

And once more, just to clarify- Apple didn’t create the tablet- but they were the first to make any money off of it, popularize it, design it beautifully, and make a real use for tablets. Tablets before the iPad (numbering in only a few models) were big, ugly, overpriced, underpowered, and focused mainly on stylus input.

Check this out to see what I mean.
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/

Why did samsung aleady implement some of these changes, Apple doesnt own the rectangle or what ever crap they demanded…after these claims the judge should have punted Apples’s lawers n representatives, not once but thrice and shouted…hold on, thats 3-strikes, U R Out…

WTF this judge cant understand apples greed….he too needs a 3-strike, U Out strategy…