3 ms·

I'm surprised that it took this long for that video to show up as evidence. The only thing it does not demonstrate is the use of gestures which is integral to

by bstar77 15y ago

I'm surprised that it took this long for that video to show up as evidence. The only thing it does not demonstrate is the use of gestures which is integral to the usefulness of this generation's tablets. I've always felt that the basic form factor patents Apple has would not ultimately hold up, and it would be insane for them to try and enforce them. But it still does not excuse the fact that Samsung tries to confuse the public that their product is pretty much an iPad/iPhone. They do this through marketing, packaging, peripherals, software and UI design. I don't like the patent system the way it exists, and I think most of Apple's 'key' mobile patents are ridiculous, but I equally can't stand a company like Samsung that comes in and says we're just going to commoditize a great product by cloning it and selling it for cheap. I think this is where Apple's emotion comes in and the 'sue everyone' mentality takes over.

pavanky 15y ago
I don't really buy the cheap argument. The galaxy Tab 10.1 is $448 on Amazon, while the ipad 2 is $449.99. The galaxy tab's in the other form factors may be cheaper, but those are the markets that Apple is not trying to, and may never, compete in. So please, before saying Android products are knock-offs or cheap clones, do some research.
ajross 15y ago
Samsung really tries to confuse the public? Really? Where can you go, intending to buy an iPad and get a Galaxy Tab instead? I mean, that's just silly. Being a flat panel with rounded corners, it indeed looks very similar to an iPad (I'll skip the argument as to whether rounded corners and black and white color choices constitute a protectable "design language" or not -- that's been done to death). But trying to argue that they're deliberately trying to steal sales from Apple via fraud seems ridiculous on its face. edit: two replies now have argued with this, apparently equating mere "copying", which is legal and pervasive, with deliberate confusion of the buyer, which is FRAUD, and a crime. If you want to condemn Samsung for the former, go right ahead. Personally I find that boring and silly, but whatever. It's a personal aeshetic or moral call, and yours to make. But accusing them of fraud is not remotely the same thing, so stop it.
- siglesias 15y ago
  Ever heard of the Samsung BlackJack [1]? Came out around the time BlackBerrys were just getting hot. This isn't about deliberately trying to confuse customers per se, but it's a close pursuit strategy that relies heavily on the association between their products and what is popularized by other companies. I remember my family taking a couple because they were offered free with a contract. Certainly this choice was partially informed by the popularity and name recognition RIM created. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607
- bstar77 15y ago
  Don't get me started on T-Mobile's Vibrant: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T959ZKATMB http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T959ZKATMB Nice cable design: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00BetaYigGqnkp/Data-Cable-for-Samsung-P1000.jpg http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00BetaYigGqnkp/Data-Cable... Here's an article that covers some of the other apple inspirations: http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/09/29/samsung-copying-apple-is-turning-into-a-joke/ http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/09/29/samsung-copying-app... I am not an Apple shill, I own 3 android phones and an iconatab, but the blatant copying is not becoming of a company like samsung.
grannyg00se 15y ago
"the fact that Samsung tries to confuse the public that their product is pretty much an iPad/iPhone" I don't think that is a fact at all. Tricking people into buying your product isn't exactly a winning strategy. Most retailers who are selling these items have a no questions asked return policy. It wouldn't work. Besides, the box for the galaxy tab 10 has Google and Samsung clearly written on the front. Unless you somehow think that "Apple" is a code company name for "Samsung" ....well... I don't know...in that case you've fooled yourself. Also, they're not cloning anything. It's a completely separate operating system. And it's definitely not cheap.
- Someone 15y ago
  If you accept the idea that there may be people who see someone using an iPad without knowing it is an Apple product, that "Google" or "Samsung" logo does not say anything. I accept that idea because I know not everybody is as obsessed with technology as the average reader of HN. I also think that, by the time that customer sees the box, it likely is too late. Who is going to say "did I buy that?" at that moment (if they actually actively look at the box at all)? I do think there are some examples of blatant copying, but I also think the difference between blatant copying and the combination of inspiration and copying out of necessity because it is the only useful approach is subtle, very subtle in cases. It will be hard for judges to define where the border between the two lies.
  - grannyg00se 15y ago
    "who see someone using an iPad without knowing it is an Apple product" But some non tech people who see someone using any tablet will think it's an iPad because Apple is the dominant player in the market. Other companies can't be held responsible for people's assumptions. Nor should they be forced to go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the dominant player for the sole purpose of reducing confusion. Or should they? I don't think so. I think there has to be some basic responsibility on the part of the consumer to at least look at the box.

by bstar77 15y ago

pavanky 15y ago

I don't really buy the cheap argument. The galaxy Tab 10.1 is $448 on Amazon, while the ipad 2 is $449.99. The galaxy tab's in the other form factors may be cheaper, but those are the markets that Apple is not trying to, and may never, compete in. So please, before saying Android products are knock-offs or cheap clones, do some research.

ajross 15y ago

Samsung really tries to confuse the public? Really? Where can you go, intending to buy an iPad and get a Galaxy Tab instead? I mean, that's just silly. Being a flat panel with rounded corners, it indeed looks very similar to an iPad (I'll skip the argument as to whether rounded corners and black and white color choices constitute a protectable "design language" or not -- that's been done to death). But trying to argue that they're deliberately trying to steal sales from Apple via fraud seems ridiculous on its face. edit: two replies now have argued with this, apparently equating mere "copying", which is legal and pervasive, with deliberate confusion of the buyer, which is FRAUD, and a crime. If you want to condemn Samsung for the former, go right ahead. Personally I find that boring and silly, but whatever. It's a personal aeshetic or moral call, and yours to make. But accusing them of fraud is not remotely the same thing, so stop it.

siglesias 15y ago
Ever heard of the Samsung BlackJack [1]? Came out around the time BlackBerrys were just getting hot. This isn't about deliberately trying to confuse customers per se, but it's a close pursuit strategy that relies heavily on the association between their products and what is popularized by other companies. I remember my family taking a couple because they were offered free with a contract. Certainly this choice was partially informed by the popularity and name recognition RIM created. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607
bstar77 15y ago
Don't get me started on T-Mobile's Vibrant: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T959ZKATMB http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T959ZKATMB Nice cable design: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00BetaYigGqnkp/Data-Cable-for-Samsung-P1000.jpg http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00BetaYigGqnkp/Data-Cable... Here's an article that covers some of the other apple inspirations: http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/09/29/samsung-copying-apple-is-turning-into-a-joke/ http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/09/29/samsung-copying-app... I am not an Apple shill, I own 3 android phones and an iconatab, but the blatant copying is not becoming of a company like samsung.

grannyg00se 15y ago

"the fact that Samsung tries to confuse the public that their product is pretty much an iPad/iPhone" I don't think that is a fact at all. Tricking people into buying your product isn't exactly a winning strategy. Most retailers who are selling these items have a no questions asked return policy. It wouldn't work. Besides, the box for the galaxy tab 10 has Google and Samsung clearly written on the front. Unless you somehow think that "Apple" is a code company name for "Samsung" ....well... I don't know...in that case you've fooled yourself. Also, they're not cloning anything. It's a completely separate operating system. And it's definitely not cheap.

Someone 15y ago
If you accept the idea that there may be people who see someone using an iPad without knowing it is an Apple product, that "Google" or "Samsung" logo does not say anything. I accept that idea because I know not everybody is as obsessed with technology as the average reader of HN. I also think that, by the time that customer sees the box, it likely is too late. Who is going to say "did I buy that?" at that moment (if they actually actively look at the box at all)? I do think there are some examples of blatant copying, but I also think the difference between blatant copying and the combination of inspiration and copying out of necessity because it is the only useful approach is subtle, very subtle in cases. It will be hard for judges to define where the border between the two lies.
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  "who see someone using an iPad without knowing it is an Apple product" But some non tech people who see someone using any tablet will think it's an iPad because Apple is the dominant player in the market. Other companies can't be held responsible for people's assumptions. Nor should they be forced to go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the dominant player for the sole purpose of reducing confusion. Or should they? I don't think so. I think there has to be some basic responsibility on the part of the consumer to at least look at the box.