Samsung's Original Galaxy Tab 10.1 Now Banned in USA

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
If IBM had been as vehement as Apple in protecting it's "IBM PC" way back when, can you imagine what the world would look like? No "PC Compatible" machines? 20 different chipmakers, 50 different OSes, 200 different file formats... none of "this" would exist.

I need to find the IBM lawyer who decided NOT to sue, and buy that man a beer...
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
0
This is the point at which Samsung should ask Microsoft if it is OK to use the Surface as a starting point for it's own tablet, as long as they also put Windows 8 on it. Microsoft will agree and they will then destroy Apple in the next round of sales.

F**K Apple!
 

gogogadgetliver

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2010
159
0
18,630
0
I'm looking forward to a Surface or other Windows 8 tablet but I wish you Android fans all the best on this.

Next thing you know Apple will be suing the Star Trek:Next Generation cast for promoting counterfeit tablets.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
so, her job/future in her job was going to be hurt, so she caved... im just reading between the lines here, and it makes me more than a little sick.
 

henkka75

Honorable
Jun 27, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
"Design patent" is one of the dumbest ideas ever. There are better ways of protecting your design (as used everywhere else in the world).

The entire world laughs at the US patent "system". In the US there is no need for something to be an actual invention, no need for it to be something new, no need to include blueprints from which someone in that field of expertice can make one (whatever the patent is about), it can be a simple discovery (cancer, a rock, a mouse.. whatever), a thing of you imagination such as a teleporter or a time-maching etc.
So if someone actually figures out how to make say a teleporter they will never make it public because someone else has the "patent" for something they don´t even know how to make.


The US "patentsystem" is a really bad joke!
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
297
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Zebulon Pi[/nom]If IBM had been as vehement as Apple in protecting it's "IBM PC" way back when, can you imagine what the world would look like? No "PC Compatible" machines? 20 different chipmakers, 50 different OSes, 200 different file formats... none of "this" would exist.I need to find the IBM lawyer who decided NOT to sue, and buy that man a beer...[/citation]

Buy yourself a beer, since you made this all up. First, IBM didn't own the processor or operating system, and there was MS-DOS machines that were not completely compatible with the PC (Tandy 2000, for example), and in some way superior.

IBM did enforce patents, and in many cases would make other companies pay up to 5% of the cost of their PC. They also made it almost impossible to clone Microchannel.

So, no, you wouldn't have anywhere near those numbers. You'd have Apple, maybe one or two MS-DOS based machines, until the patents became irrelevant, and then everything would be as it is now.
 

djscribbles

Honorable
Apr 6, 2012
159
0
10,640
2
It's kinda humorous that the legal system moves so slowly that it's making it's decision on a product that is ramping down production to make way for the next generation.

Not that I agree with the decision, but it's pretty much a non-issue for Samsung at this point.
 

molo9000

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2010
243
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]Zebulon Pi[/nom]If IBM had been as vehement as Apple in protecting it's "IBM PC" way back when, can you imagine what the world would look like? No "PC Compatible" machines? 20 different chipmakers, 50 different OSes, 200 different file formats... none of "this" would exist.I need to find the IBM lawyer who decided NOT to sue, and buy that man a beer...[/citation]

IBM PC compatible machines used off-the-shelf parts and a cleanly reverse engineered BIOS. IBM simply didn't have a case against it's competitors because they didn't use anything that belonged to IBM.

You can be pretty sure that IBM would have sued if they had a case. It was Microsoft and the clone makers who profited from the "PC standard", not IBM.
 

Dogsnake

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2006
99
0
18,610
24
So Apple (one of the wealthiest companies in the world) felt threatened by the Samsung's use of a design. With sales of the iPad dominating the tablet market they felt they did not have enough market share. Apple seems to thing that if you do not want our products then you should do without. Does Apple really think that everything they have done is totally unique and original. Have they not built on the achievements of all those who have gone before them? The patent laws are long due for overhaul. In the end however it is the lawyers who have made their money (what's new) as inno time at all no one will want a 10.1 as it will be replaced.
 

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
175
0
18,640
4
I'm glad I got mine early on. although, I think I'd like the 10.1N design better. the side pointing speakers on mine actually interfere with the ability to watch netflix or hulu on it. I have to actually cup my hands around the speakers or turn the volume way up to hear it well enough.
 

halcyon

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2004
640
0
18,940
3
[citation][nom]math1337[/nom]It took them so long to ban the tab 10.1 that the Samsung galaxy tab 2 is already out.[/citation]
LOL. What a waste. If you want an iPad you'll get one. If you want an Android tablet, you'll get one. What does Apple hope accomplish beside making themeselves look more like bratty little children. ...asinine...and I actually really like Apple products..
 

slabbo

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2009
192
0
18,630
0
"Previously Judge Koh denied Apple's bid for an injunction on the tablet and multiple Galaxy smartphones. But now she has changed her mind thanks federal appeals court which instructed Koh to reconsider Apple's request on the Android-based tablet."

I wonder how much cash dropped on her desk...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Streaming Video & TVs 4
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
T Streaming Video & TVs 3
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
L Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 1
X Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
Spatzle Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
M Streaming Video & TVs 2
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
mtp1032 Streaming Video & TVs 2
Loco_Gizmo Streaming Video & TVs 2
I Streaming Video & TVs 4
L Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY