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

[blockhead4243]

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?

 

[RAC]

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?

I have the opposite attitude. I think that it's healthy that other manufacturers mimic and hopefully improve on the iPad.

We are the winners either way. There should be more alternatives to choose from and Apple will have been pushed to improve the iPad when when the time comes to replace our current tablets.

BTW I had my first "hands on" with the Galaxy Tab just today. After a very cursory fiddle, it looked very nice to me.

 

[thewitt]

We win when companies innovate to compete, not when they steal.

 

[Drag Bunt]

I would like for once to see a product made by apple that is not copied

http://aleafofgrass.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/g4-cube3.jpg

 

[Kaykaykay]

I like competition and don't condone stealing, but I think the patent system needs fixing. Companies should not be able to file speculative or ridiculously broad patents, sit on them for years (and sometimes never use them) just so they can limit what competitors can do.

If they file patents, which I think can encourage innovation as well as squelch it at times, they should have a reasonable time limit to use them. If they don't use them by the deadline, the innovations should fall into public domain and further more developments for the public good.

 

[thewitt]

US patents expire after 20 years.

 

[Kaykaykay]

US patents expire after 20 years.

That's too long for no use, IMO, especially in the tech field, where there's a lot of squatting.

 

[thewitt]

That's too long for no use, IMO, especially in the tech field, where there's a lot of squatting.

So what would you propose as an alternative? The US patent system does not currently support different expiration dates for different patents related to the field they are in. As a patent holder myself, I don't think I would support that option either.

How long is long enough for a tech field patent? Thousands of them expire every day today, and even more are invalidated by not being defended.

The patent system is flawed in many ways today, however if patents expired in only 5 years, they would be next to worthless. The licensing of IP is a huge business today, and the useful life of a patent makes that possible.

 

[Kaykaykay]

I'd suggest five years for use. If you can't use it in five or sell by then, into public domain it goes.

 

[thewitt]

I'd suggest five years for use. If you can't use it in five or sell by then, into public domain it goes.

Way too penal. It takes more than 5 years to develop the technology to take advantage of most tech patents. Often as long as 10 years, and then you need the protection of your IP while you market the product using your patent.

This would completely devalue the patent process, as well as result in billions of dollars of paper losses in the value of existing IP.

Without the protection, many companies will never invest the money needed to bring the new tech to the market in the first place.

Never happen

 

[Kaykaykay]

Way too penal. It takes more than 5 years to develop the technology to take advantage of most tech patents. Often as long as 10 years, and then you need the protection of your IP while you market the product using your patent.

This would completely devalue the patent process, as well as result in billions of dollars of paper losses in the value of existing IP.

Never happen

I doubt it will happen, because it doesn't benefit patent holders or others who profit from squatting. There's lots of money made in squatting, and that's not a public benefit. But as with many things in society, the broken things don't get fixed because they benefit a relative few instead of the public at large. I know a guy who runs a lab, and he and his team have hundreds of patents among them. They spend a lot of effort working up patents to squat.

 

[thewitt]

The patent system is not designed to help the public, it's expressly created to help the patent holder. Period.

 

[RAC]

I get the impression that patent rights are hard to defend when it comes to software, apart from outright code copying which is really a copyright issue. The only winners seems to be the lawyers most of the time.

Don't forget that Apple (Steve Jobs) originally got their ideas for the original Mac OS from Parc Xerox (SmallTalk). I think that there was a court case at one point.

At the end of the day I think it's best that Apple and everyone else are exposed as much as possible and as early as possible to the the rigors of competition.

 

[Kaykaykay]

The patent system is not designed to help the public, it's expressly created to help the patent holder. Period.

We disagree about that.

 

[blockhead4243]

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?