Other tablets that try to copy the ipad 1 or 2!!

[Kaykaykay]

Thanks for all of your replies, I enjoyed reading them...I agree with the shortened length on the patents, also I enjoy competition to keep apple up to snuff, but the whole "app" division was created by apple and has now been thoroughly copied. This upsets me just because any other tablet calls theirs better but used the exact same system, because everyone likes apples usability. But on another note what do y'all think about the rumors about iPad 3?

There are a bunch of existing threads on iPad 3 rumors.

As for copying, don't sweat it on Apple's behalf. They are aggressive about defending their patents and have the money to do it.

The patent system was created to foster innovation*, and some have been abusing the system, unfortunately. We're lucky the wheel wasn't invented under the patent system, lol.

Link to U.S. patent office leader's blog, which refers to its mission:

Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog

* The mission of the USPTO is clearly stated in our Strategic Plan: fostering innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically and abroad, by delivering high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide, with a highly skilled, diverse workforce.

 

[thewitt]

We disagree about that.

You can disagree all you want. It's not my opinion. It's a statement of fact.

Patents are supported by the US Constitution, which specifically states the authority lies with the new federal government:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Which if you understand the history of the era was in direct response to the Industrial Revolution and the need for protected investment to ensure continued progress and growth.

 

[skimonkey]

I have issues with all of these other companies ( Asus, Samsung Motorola, etc.) that try to copy/mimic the iPad, and all of apples products. Any time apple makes a new device, other companies follow and try to copy, and improve upon their own device. such as iPods, iPhones, and most recently the iPad series. After doing a terrible job of copying apple they come out and say its better, and this is what really "grinds my gears", I would like for once to see a product made by apple that is not copied. I'm curious, does anyone have the same feelings or ideas, and also does anyone have opposing ideas on the subject. I'm open to all discussion, not just ones who are biased to iPad?

How different is this with other products that we see? Such as cars and their design? I see this exact same issue played out in many products that we have. Personally, I am fine with more companies bringing on various tablets, etc. It gives the consumer choices and not just with one. While I love my iPad, it is an expensive device that not everyone can enjoy-but may be able to enjoy with something similar and closer to their budget.

 

[Kaykaykay]

You can disagree all you want. It's not my opinion. It's a statement of fact.

Patents are supported by the US Constitution, which specifically states the authority lies with the new federal government:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Which if you understand the history of the era was in direct response to the Industrial Revolution and the need for protected investment to ensure continued progress and growth.

Lol. Note the "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's the point. Offering protection to inventors is a means toward that end. If the means are abused, there's no reason to let abusers continue to undermine the goal. The second part is a clause in the sentence, by the way.

 

[thewitt]

The second part defines the action. You cannot read only the first part of the declaration.

 

[skimonkey]

The second part defines the action. You cannot read only the first part of the declaration.

...then 3 periods at the end of that clause will allow the reader to understand that the declaration continues. Providing only a part of a quoted statement, creates bias and misleads the reader. Perhaps providing a valid reference with year will allow readers to read the full article intended, versus a portion that is incomplete. Every reader will have a different interpretation of what is read, particularly when out of context. Just my thoughts...

 

[Kaykaykay]

The second part defines the action. You cannot read only the first part of the declaration.

Not reading only the first part. You appear to think the second part is the purpose of the U.S. patent system. That's inaccurate.

The patent system was created to further science and useful arts. The means of getting there is offering inventors protection.

If you say, "I want to get to point A by riding a horse," for example, the goal is point A, and the clause is how you're trying to get there. The goal doesn't change because your horse is lamed and maybe you walk instead.

The patent system was created to further the public's (society's) interest in innovation.

 

[Kaykaykay]

...then 3 periods at the end of that clause will allow the reader to understand that the declaration continues. Providing only a part of a quoted statement, creates bias and misleads the reader. Perhaps providing a valid reference with year will allow readers to read the full article intended, versus a portion that is incomplete. Every reader will have a different interpretation of what is read, particularly when out of context. Just my thoughts...

He already posted the sentence, and I quoted him directly above my post. Everything is available for everyone to see. And the patent system's leader further explains in the blog post that I quoted and linked to.

 

[skimonkey]

Thanks, Kaykaykay---trying to follow the dialog has been somewhat confusing,, particularly when reading content without full reference. I will go back to review the full statement provided. What appeared, looked like the paragraph was indented to insert an opinion.

 

[Kaykaykay]

Thanks, Kaykaykay---trying to follow the dialog has been somewhat confusing,, particularly when reading content without full reference. I will go back to review the full statement provided. What appeared, looked like the paragraph was indented to insert an opinion.

Well, actually the whole statement rattles on some more, but it's patently clear, lol.

The idea is that the public benefits from innovation. The U.S. gov't was aiming to serve that by issuing patents.

 

[skimonkey]

Well, actually the whole statement rattles on some more, but it's patently clear, lol.

The idea is that the public benefits from innovation. The U.S. gov't was aiming to serve that by issuing patents.

Thank you!

 

[blockhead4243]

Hahaha I love this... Good discussion which technically is a mild argument, but what isn't? As much as I love the constitution, I don't think that was the point of this thread haha.

Just curious, what do y'all think the death of Steve jobs will bring to apple as a company. Do you think it will hurt, help, or ruin the company.

I personally think it will inspire the company, and make it better. After all Steve was just the front man, not the one engineering the devices.