Apple being sued and suing everyone http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...e-kubrick-made-first-ipad-20110824-1j931.html So basically, Apple is being sued for copying the design on something from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
There's a lot of news going around lately. Anyway, yeah, that's just wrong. Copying someone else's design is not only plagiarism, but a criminal act. Since they decided to make a copy version, the least they could have done is give credit to the original designers.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that this counts. I'll admit I only skimmed so I'm sorry if there is more to it than this, but you can't claim you own the design of a flat device that is mostly a touchscreen. It's just a tablet. I mean you don't see MS suing because both computer companies use towers. If they patented it then there might be a case, but without that they are just grasping at straws looking for a quick buck.
If they really want to sue Apple for Actually making a computer pad, then somethings a little off. Sure that film was made back in the 1960s, but that would be the equivalent of Star Trek suing the military when the actually make "phaser" weapons for warfare. I honestly don't understand why someone would think they could get away with that...
I agree with mixt. I mean, even now there are pretty much carbon copies of the iPad sold at places like Wal-Mart, but you don't really see/hear about Apple taking it to court. So I'm more inclined to believe that this is indeed Samsung just trying to get a quick buck, rather than any real form of copyright infringement.
Well what else could a tablet look like? "In his book, which inspired the Kubrick film, Arthur C. Clarke described a tablet device that is remarkably similar to the iPad. He wrote: "When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug in his foolscap-size newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers…Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him. Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-size rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort." Edit: Also, http://translate.google.com/transla...ert-onjuist-bewijs-in-zaak-tegen-samsung.html and http://www.itworld.com/it-managemen...-files-inaccurate-evidence-dutch-samsung-case that.
The title of this thread should be "Apple Suing Everybody." Apple is being a little noncompetitive, forcing competitors' products off shelves instead of just making the better one. As said before, aren't tablets supposed to look alike? If not, how else are they supposed to look like? Samsung's defense is kind of silly but does make a point: Apple does not own the idea of a computer tablet, and should not have rights to it's design. Apple did not invent the tablet computer, portable media player, laptop or smartphone. What if they were denied the rights to create or sell one of their own?
oh brother, we just can't stop with the sueing can we? I mean, this is just rediculous, what do I need to say for this? OH wait, I know: ............
So pretty much Samsung was trying to stick to a reasonable position, but Apple found out their devices where inaccurate in size? I do agree with that. However, Apple has been making some of this stuff, and sometimes it would be months to years before "competition" would appear in the shelves. I personally don't think that Apple should worry, but if there is legit copyright issues, like names and icons and logos, then i would see reason for this. To put it in easier terms with an analogy: 2 artists. The one draws a picture of a face, then the other draws a face as well. It's not the same person, but the first artist says that the second copied him because they both have eyebrows, eyes, nose, ears, lips, and hair drawn in there picture. You can't copyright those kind of features, the same is with the computer tablets. But you can copyright names and icons and logos.
Wow, there's something you don't won't to hear after Jobs' official resgnation... Okay, from what I understand, someone comes up with a futuristic prop for a movie. This little prop has no patents, no association to any brand/corporation/manufacturer in general, but a decade later someone creates a device withthe same shape and form of function (touch-screen). As laughable as this is, I can't shake the feeling that they just might have a case if they present it right. However, the original "product" was just a shiny screen with no real functionality. Hell, it was just a concept at that time. I don't know if it's valid to sue for taking a movie concept and make it into a real device, but someone's being very bold by pursuing this lawsuit.
but if it was taken from something that was in a movie, can it really be called stealing? I mean, how many things are put in movies that might some day become real? If the concept was used it a movie but it wasn't actually usable, and just a prop, how is it really stealing a design?
I think it's more the fact that it was in the book which was made into a movie. And since the book and everything in it can be regarded as intellectual property, Apple would have essentially stolen from someone.
ugh, this is too troublesome. This is why I like to keep to myself. I don't care too much with current events or politics, but it's these kind of things that get me somewhat interested, and then I happen to know almost nothing about these kinds of things, so I sound really stupid
Well that was just what I though the basis for the case was. I could be wrong. I know nothing about law.
Ahh true, haven't thought of it that way. But i'm not sure if it would work like that. If that was the case, pretty much you would need permission from movie studios before you sell your product...
