Mobile phones & tablets thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

The iPad 4 is out!


Wi-Fi
16GB £399
32GB £479
64GB £559
Wi-Fi + Cellular
16GB £499
32GB £579
64GB £659

---

Why have Apple chosen to be so confusing with names with the iPad?

iPad
iPad 2
The new iPad
Refreshed version of new iPad......

:crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

I agree.

I'm surprised some here aren't going nuts about Cadburys vs the Vatican's official chocolate maker that lost a legal case to carry on using Imperial purple to wrap its chocolates used in religious services. Cadburys vs God, surely that should ruffle a few feathers no?

---

There's a difference here. That purple is uniquely associated with Cadbury chocolate. Rectangles with corners which we look at and think "APPLE!!!!!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

I actually have an example for that.

In Sweden we have a soft drink called (jul)must. The exact recipe are a well guarded secret by the family who owns it.
They have opted to not "patent" the recipe since that would mean that they would have to reveal the exact content of the recipe.

---

The difference being that no-one would want to know how to make Julmust, apart from to make sure that mixture of ingredients is not allowed to see the light of day - horrible stuff, eugghhh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

As Henners said all this displays is a total lack of understanding of the most basic principles of the patenting process.

Name a single part of your computer that does not have a patent. In fact, name a single thing developed in the modern era that doesn't.

Patenting isn't a secret process, the information is out there to educate yourself about it. Why don't you?

---

Here's an example of something I consider worthy of trademarking.

http://www.pause.com/wp-content/gall...-ps-50a750.jpg

The Samsung "Touch of Colour" styling is unique and obviously a Samsung thing. Walk into a Currys or Comet and see a TV or monitor with that styling and you know it's a Samsung product.

If you saw a phone with a glass front and back and a metal band around it you'd know that it was an iPhone 4/4s. This is something I think is unique to Apple and which I feel that they should be able to patent. However I do not thing that the shape of the previous iPhones was anything unique at all and they shouldn't have been allowed to sue Samsung for something as general as the rough shape of their products.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

A different way of explaining what I was trying to say earlier, cheers :)
I think Coke and Pepsi is another good example of a recipe that was kept secret for decades. Its just an industry that patenting doesn't suit.

---

Definitely.

Don't get me wrong, I think that patenting is a good thing and trademarking too. I like the fact that I can go pretty much anywhere in the world and buy a black drink in a coke bottle shaped bottle and know that I'm getting Coke (well, you'd hope!!!!) :) and it would be a sad day when companies could just copy products to the exact detail and exploit the ignorance of those who don't know any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I agree some patents awarded were down right silly but the question needs to be directed at the US patent office who issued it rather than blaming the company. If the patent was refused in the first place, then they'd have no case to answer. Is it a fault of the system or is it easier to blame a manufacturer like Samsung or Apple for being petty? That's the interesting part I think.

In my opinion they do already, just not every single person on earth agrees. If they accomplished that, it would be a first for any manufacturer in history. There are plenty of people like me who have been tempted away from their rivals and are happy to buy their products. If everyone thought like me though, there wouldn't be a competitive market.

---

But I think their aggressive protection of their products with some dubious patents/trademarks has harmed us in terms of competition. What happened to the Apple that brought things to market like the clickwheel (not an apple invention btw!) which was a far superior method of controlling your MP3 player than anything else I've seen. I had a U2 edition iPod and loved it, it was a great product although let down by iTunes and Apple's control freakishness :)

I agree that it's the patent office that really needs to be pulled up on this, but it takes two to tango and I think Apple does seem to push the boat out when it comes to vague patents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I own 2 Samsung TV's and the one in my lounge has the red round it like the one in the picture. A nice product and agree it should have a patent for that very reason.

I think the rounded corners and black surround case came to light when the first Samsung Galaxy came out and lets be honest it was very similar in appearance to the iPhone 3G at the time apart from a rectangular button. Samsung have since moved away from this type of aesthetic and developed their own style. It was a silly court battle but it appears to have pushed Samsung's innovation in a good direction. The S3 is a lovely looking phone so you could say that particular court case did the job nicely. I doubt that type of patent would be awarded now due to the damages paid out. It would be an easy return on the money, :)

---

Should people be able to patent minimalism though? I'll admit that the S1 and 3gs are quite similar. But when you put out a product that is so basic in design, I really don't feel that you should be able to protect it, because, well..... it's just a very basic design. I bought 2 2l bottles of Pepsi last night and I could be wrong, but they're pretty much the same as the 2l bottles of pop that all drinks come in. They're hardly designed at all are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Thing is its not just Apple being aggressive. HTC, Samsung, Nokia and Motorola are doing exactly the same, although Apple probably started it all off. Google purchased Motorola originally to acquire its patents. Credit needs to be given to Apple for pushing the touch screen phone market in this direction and I think the reason they have been so aggressive is because its rivals have done so well. Lets not forget how crap touch screen phones were pre-2007. I had the LG Prada, and a previous LG before that and they were terrible in terms of responsiveness and the software was awful. I also had the Nokia Xpress music which I loved, but it quickly became dated. The iPhone kicked everyone up the bum and thankfully we have a market with so much choice. This whole patent war will no doubt force a change in the patenting system worldwide but if there are weaknesses then its the manufacturers job to exploit it. It does need to change. There's no gentlemen's agreements at this level regardless of how many consumers cry foul when they think they are not getting the products they want. :)

---

I agree completely. It isn't just Apple, but Apple seems to be the one getting big judgements for some rather silly patents.

Caroline had the same Nokia as the one you mentioned, it was good at the start and then.... well it wasn't!

I agree that Apple pushed the boat out and took touchscreen phones to the next level. Just like Audi, Toyota, Ford and Lancia brought 4wd turbo road cars to the masses in the 80's and early 90's but then they were eclipsed by Mitsubishi and Subaru who brought out cars which were better for the money and ended up more popular.

Would we be in a better place if Audi had been granted a patent on using turbocharging and 4wd together in a road car? *strokes chin*

Sorry guys I think you might find LG did the coloured strip round the edge of the telly 1st, although theirs was blue IIRC, in which case the idea of Samsung patenting it seems to be exactly what you are arguing apple are guilty of

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Changing topic, does anyone here know if/how the Play store for Android differs for phones and tablets?