Boycott all things Apple.

Even Steve Jobs has had enough

iquit ??????

1. Prices are based not just on production costs but also on the willingness of the market to sustain such - i.e. what people are prepared to pay. Take a look at the price of most designer clothing. (That's where the true idiots spend their money.) Most of Apple's products sell well so the price must be right..

I rather enjoyed that little self justification for spending too much money on your toy but the opening was the most amusing.

I would agree designer clothing is overpriced and for idiots but I see little difference between the price hype for idiots who want to be fashionable in clothes and the overpricing designed for idiots that want to look fashionable in technology.

Don't moan - you brought it up.

Why submit a doctored image then?

As I said previously it depends on what exactly you're trying to show.

If you were trying to say a square is a form of rectangle, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to modify either one to aid in showing this similarity.

As I said previously it depends on what exactly you're trying to show.

 

If you were trying to say a square is a form of rectangle, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to modify either one to aid in showing this similarity.

But Apple weren't trying to show that a square is a form of rectangle they were trying to show that the Galaxy Tab was a copy of the iPad.

If you want to claim infringement of a design patent you have to show that the actual product is a copy - not that it is similar. Presenting a doctored image is equivalent to Louis Vuitton getting hold of a competitor's bag, modifying it make it look more like one of their bags and then presenting it to a judge saying 'look they've copied our product'.

Anyway, the judge has rejected Apple's design patent claims so what ever Apple were trying to claim and whether their methods were valid or not, it didn't work.

But Apple weren't trying to show that a square is a form of rectangle they were trying to show that the Galaxy Tab was a copy of the iPad.

I'm simply offering an explanation of why it may not be unreasonable to alter the aspect ratio of an image.

If you want to claim infringement of a design patent you have to show that the actual product is a copy - not that it is similar.

Indeed, and again, if changing the aspect ratio helps to show that it is a copy, then it is not unreasonable to do so.

Presenting a doctored image is equivalent to Louis Vuitton getting hold of a competitor's bag, modifying it make it look more like one of their bags and then presenting it to a judge saying 'look they've copied our product'.

It's not an equivalent comparison, because the content of the image apple supplied wasn't modified in anyway, just the aspect ratio.

If a competitor of Louis Vuitton had copied their design, but made it slightly smaller or wider (for example), then it wouldn't be unreasonable for Louis Vuitton to make one of their own bags the same size to highlight that it is the same design (IMV).

Anyway, the judge has rejected Apple's design patent claims so what ever Apple were trying to claim and whether their methods were valid or not, it didn't work.

Indeed.

I rather enjoyed that little self justification for spending too much money on your toy but the opening was the most amusing.

It's not clear whether you're referring to the opening of my post or the section which you quote. Clarify.

I would agree designer clothing is overpriced and for idiots but I see little difference between the price hype for idiots who want to be fashionable in clothes and the overpricing designed for idiots that want to look fashionable in technology.

 

Don't moan - you brought it up.

Fashion is irrelevant with technology products and whilst some buyers of Apple's products might be seeking kudos the cost of them suggests they must be very few.

As for moaning... I don't... but nor do I suffer fools gladly. Your opening post was stupid - as I pointed out many posts ago - as were your further points about Apple's products and their buyers which I countered. I could carry on doing so if you want to. However, that should be a thread of its own and there are many already on here and out there which largely go around in circles with those who don't like Apple bleating on about control and cost when in fact all they're saying is that the prefer other products.

Talking of poorly thought out arguments:

 

 

There is no mention of aspect ratio in the text because they would have to say the Galaxy Tab's is significantly different from the iPad's - which would argue against their claim of copying. As it is, the only indication of the Galaxy Tab's aspect ratio in the complaint is the false representation of it in the doctored image.

The conclusion of the article to which I referred ...

'Apple's complaint therefore has little to do with the aspect ratio of the screen and everything to do with the shape, presentation, design, packaging and overall identity of the iPad that it is accusing Samsung of "slavishly" copying.'

...is key. Moreover, the consensus of those closer to process believe it was probably a mistake rather than a deliberate act - not least as one piece I read (which, unfortunately, I can't find now) said the judge would actually hold and inspect the devices in question.

I'm simply offering an explanation of why it may not be unreasonable to alter the aspect ratio of an image.

<...>

Indeed, and again, if changing the aspect ratio helps to show that it is a copy, then it is not unreasonable to do so.

Your point might be fair in the context of, say, marketing hyperbole. But it is entirely invalid in the context of legal proceedings (where evidence is only valid if it corresponds to unalterated facts).

Since the iPad does not have a widescreen ratio, but the Samsung unit does (and this difference is entirely material to the respective appearance and configuration of each unit), it is a rather crucial point.

I don't buy the 'mistake' bit for one second, though. Regardless, I very much doubt the case will turn on this doctored image alone.

It is absolutely unreasonable: basically, it is fabricating evidence, by misrepresenting (altering/doctoring) facts (the actual design (aspect ratio) of the Samsung unit).

If that was what they were comparing then I would say you have a point, it wasn't. The aspect ratio was altered to highlight other similarities, and in that regard I don't think it's unreasonable to do so (just as it wouldn't in the bag example above).

Your point might be fair in the context of, say, marketing hyperbole. But it is entirely invalid in the context of legal proceedings (where evidence is only valid if it corresponds to unalterated facts).

It wasn't the aspect ratio that was the issue in question.

Since the iPad does not have a widescreen ratio, but the Samsung unit does (and this difference is entirely material to the respective appearance and configuration of each unit), it is a rather crucial point.

It would have been, if the apsect ratio was the issue that the case revolved around. It wasn't.

I don't buy the 'mistake' bit for one second, though. Regardless, I very much doubt the case will turn on this doctored image alone.

Indeed.

Hell yeah! love this thread I hate apple. They've pulled so much competition off the field it's not even funny

check out http://appzzz.blogspot.com for some android app ideas

John Maynard Keynes must be turning in his grave whist Karl Marx must be laughing his heavenly socks off.