Court allows Samsung Galaxy Tab to again sell in Europe
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
I don't see any of those improvements as being particularly non-obvious.
The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes.
Truly, innovations in hardware allowed them to put more horsepower with a longer running time in the case than MS could have ever achieved in the 90s. But as of 2008, Microsoft was still following the "full PC+touch" strategy. (For that matter they seem intent on continuing to flog that horse even today.)
And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009. Even the more optimistic observers forecast merely a solid niche product.
Now I'm not arguing that what Apple did should necessarily be protectable under the various forms of IP law, but implying that it was "obvious" seems deeply unfair.
Particularly if the story of the birth of the iPhone was accurate. That is: that the iPad was not born of a project to scale up the iPhone, but that iPhone was born from the idea to shrink an already-under-development iPad. Pushing the iPad concept and strategy back to at least 2005/2006.
>And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to most industry observers in 2009.
All well and good, but what does that make the Crunchpad? Chopped liver? Imagine if they had the backing of a multibillion dollar company or weren't ripped off by their partner with the JooJoo.
http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0004/6593/4...
Is it just me or is there some selective amnesia bordering on revisionist history going on all the iPad stories and comments?
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-t...
Arrington's publicizing the concept may speak to whether the invention ought to be legally protectable (depending on whether the iPad did precede the iPhone). But given that no tablet producers were on board, it certainly doesn't somehow invalidate the non-obviousness of the concept.
Certainly, I grant all credit due to Arrington and the FusionGarage folks for recognizing the innovation. I just don't see how their experience is any sort of counterpoint.
I'll also say that while battery life did make a difference, the actual way you interact with the OS was one of the mian reasons for the tablet tipping point. The clunky mouse pointer (controlled via pen) of yesteryear pales in comparison to what we use today. The fact that the bar for interaction is so high now makes people crave a tablet experience, even if only for experiencing the novelty of touching interfaces they used to only be able to point to, with their full hands.
If Apple weren't suing everyone else too they would have a lot more general credibility in my eyes. By suing everyone they just look scared of competition.
Exactly how many possible styles are there for a handheld LCD device with a touchscreen as its primary / only input?
That's what's so utterly ridiculous about this; even if Apple hadn't altered pictures to make the Galaxy tab look more like an iPad, what were Samsung going to do? Make a circular tablet with ridges all over the screen and a fold-out table in the back? Apple have tried to assert that a the look and feel of a device where about the only practical variations are how big it is and which way round it defaults to being held is somehow theirs and theirs alone to exploit.
Certainly more than one. Just as not every smartphone has to look like an iPhone, not every tablet has to look like an iPad. Even something as simple as rounding the corners differently[1][2] seems to have eluded or been intentionally ignored by the Galaxy Tab's designers. Just as there are limits on practical designs, there are limits of those limits, and we benefit when companies push those limits in a way that Samsung (it is argued) is not presently doing with the Tab.
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samsung_Omnia_7.jpg
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Phone_Marketplace.... (a Samsung Focus)
I don't think I have to admit that. Is it really any more iPad like (at a glance) than this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759029-REG/Motorola_00...
(I have no idea about the new Galaxy but I suspect it's the same - EDIT: by "the same" I mean different from an iPad)
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/10/article-131298380918...
http://www.androidtabletfanatic.com/android-tablet-news/16-o...
2.) Apple misled the courts by offering altered images of Samsung's Galaxy Tab. In the filed documents, the pictures of both the iPad and Galaxy Tab appear to be the same size. In reality, the Galaxy Tab uses a different sized screen and aspect ratio than Apple's tablet.
Both of those datapoints are intriguing.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-tab-101-injun...
Isnt it counter-productive for Apple to make customers aware of their competitor's products that way? A lot of customers are gonna think "If they are sueing them, that alternative tablet must be worth checkin out."
In fact, the more Apple distances itself from those kinds of geeks/tech-enthusiats, the more successful it is.
To this day it surprises me how little the average person knows about technology. They know much more than a decade ago but it is still minute.
EDIT: As a personal example, I have a kid sister, 13 years younger, who is in her third year at Cornell studying law and just had intern job at Google this summer in which she wrote a Google student blog post (Yes, I am very proud). She didn't know how to right-click using her Macbook. She can type like the wind and knows the features of every phone but she wan't aware of tapping two fingers on her trackpad.
To me this is very representative of the average user today. They know enough to get by but don't have the depth of knowledge when it comes to the details. If they read a patent story I don't believe they would understand what they were reading unless there was a perceived gain to it.
In my situation, I explored what my computer could do. She did not because she wasn't interested in opening System Preferences to see the options. Most people won't. The computer is merely a means to an end. Further than that, they're no longer interested. This is why, I believe, that the iPad (or other tablets)is so important but that is another story for another day.
If Apple's got a serious chance at a long-term disruption of their competitors' business, then giving them a short-term publicity boost is nothing to worry about.
Of course, if this lawsuit is just a stalling tactic to interfere with Samsung for months instead of years, then the payoff isn't as big. But Apple still has the highest profit margins and the most cash available for tactics like this, so they're not really in much danger of shooting themselves in the foot.
Isn't it amazing that the court can make such wide-reaching decisions just by looking at images, rather than the actual devices? It would not be a very complicated thing to present the physical devices as evidence in this kind of case.
It’s also not the final decision. The evidence will be examined again at a later point in time and Apple is liable for all damages should the court decide against them at that point.
The actual Samsung aspect ratio (of the full device) is about 1.46, while the photo makes it look closer to 1.36. The iPad's image is more accurate at around 1.3. The vertical lines in the image (closer together around the Galaxy) probably make the aspect ratios appear even more similar.
Here's a larger image of the evidence: http://blog.webwereld.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/screensh...