Samsung Certifies The Most Shameless Smart Cover Rip-Off You’ll Ever See

Samsung Certifies The Most Shameless Smart Cover Rip-Off You’ll Ever See

What peels away from your tablet’s display, folds to allow you to prop it up or type on it, comes in five pastel colors and has a product name that starts with the word ‘smart?’

Apple’s Smart Cover for iPad 2 is a good guess. But that’s not what we’re talking about here: we’re talking about the Smart Case for Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. And hey, no surprise here: Samsung’s officially certified the copycat Smart Cover to be used with their copycat iPad.

Samsung Certifies The Most Shameless Smart Cover Rip-Off You’ll Ever See

The Smart Case is a blatant imitation of the Smart Cover in everything except the way it fixes to the Galaxy Tab: because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.

We’d be tempted to leave it there. It’s a blatant rip-off, but the accessory world is filled with many such rip-offs, and Samsung can’t be faulted for this one.

Or can they? First of all, Samsung has given an official endorsement to the Smart Case by way of certification. Second, it is a copycat Smart Cover for a copycat iPad affiliated with a company that is already well known for ripping off Apple.

But third? According to 9to5Mac, the makers of the Smart Case have deep family ties to Samsung itself:

The Smart Case is designed exclusively for Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 – and not by a coincidence, warns our reader Jun.

Apparently Sang-yong Kim, the Anymode CEO, was “born in Samsung family”. Jun tells us – and you’re free to take it at face value – that the Anymode CEO “is nephew of the Samsung’s chairman Kun-Hee Lee“, the claim we were unable to verify at the time of this writing. The 69-year old chairman of Samsung Electronics stepped down in April 2008 amid the Slush funds scandal, but returned at the group’s helm in March of last year. He is credited for improving the quality of Samsung’s design and products. Anymode is not even attempting to conceal the Samsung link.

Jeez. Copying Apple’s mobile product designs is just endemic at Samsung, isn’t it? No wonder Cupetino had enough.

  • lwdesign1

    Unbelievable!!!! Apple is suing Samsung for copying a bunch of its design and technology of the iPad and iPhone, and midway through the fight, Samsung comes out with an identical-looking cover for the Galaxy Tab!! Are these guys kidding? It’s like they’re flaunting their copy-itis, or are completely out of touch with what institutes infringement. I’m aghast!

  • Chris Brunner

    Seriously???

    It’s getting pretty bad!

    -Chris
    http://friendsofmac.net

  • Junaidkureshi

    Steve jobs was right 2011 will be year of copycats. Shame on you samsung.

  • aramishero

    WTF… What happen to you Samsung!!! Why not hire a Designer to help you design something new? Why keep copying Apple? This is absolutely SUX… Shame on you…

  • William Johnson

    Wow this is sad….. THe ITC needs to shut down Samsung.. This is really really sad. Way to be a copy Samsung. 

  • Ahmed Alkhuzae

    hhhhhhh this made me laugh so hard

    PATHETIC LOL

  • Junaidkureshi

    Apple should kick legally so hard samsung ass this time so they never ever try to copy anyone. Shame on you, first google I/O giveaway was badly failed finally they are again copying apple.

  • Junaidkureshi

    Apple should kick legally so hard samsung ass this time so they never ever try to copy anyone. Shame on you, first google I/O giveaway was badly failed finally they are again copying apple.

  • Gheedsgreed

    LOL

  • Gordon_Keenan

    The pain in my sides from laughing at this is just so bad.

    At least if Apple decides to rip off something, it does it with a sense of style!!

  • Ingo Repinz

    but you must see that it is alluring to have all these details about the product of your competitor in house and let them influence your ideas. I think it is a human habbit to copy what is good. That is how technology spread in anciant times, like the weel. People saw that it is helpfull and copy it for them self.
    On the other hand where is the moral in it, if you sign dozens of papers not to do it.

  • Honey Badger

    Samsung didn’t steal this product idea, they simply certified and sell this stolen product idea. 

    Pathetic none the less.

  • yodaxl7

    Add this to the law suit!!

  • John TheBadger

    It’s stories like this that make me miss As The Apple Turns. Do you remember how much grief Jack would give Dell for their copycat antics? Jack, you are missed.

  • Arimathéia

    Poor Android world…

  • wilkerlucio

    I hope it will at least help Apple on current issue process against Samsung. Die copycats!!

  • Sachin Kumar

    Samsung has lost the last sliver of respect I had for it. ITC needs to ban it’s products right NOW…

  • supertino

    If I were Apple, I would definitely go after this company (which would be an indirect way to get to Samsung, the owner being the chairman’s nephew and all).

    With every passing day, I am getting more disgusted with Samsung’s behavior. What surprises me how many americans hate Apple, an american company and support Samsung which is so obviously ripping off the innovation Apple is spearheading. Sad, really. 

  • Jeremiah Nilsson

    die copycats die.

    I will never ever buy a Samsung anything for the rest of my life.

  • Figurative

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Apple when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

  • gjperera

    They can’t…Apple needs their displays for the iPad 3…

  • nikkins

    I can’t stand unoriginal, uncreative companies and people that steal other people’s ideas. Aren’t these companies ashamed and embarrassed to blatantly steal Apple’s design’s for the iPad, iPhone, smart cover and on and on…. Karma will get them in the end, RIM is dying off, Samsung will get there’s eventually…

  • gjperera

    Make sure you don’t buy an iPad then…they sport Samsung displays.

  • SpongebobUK

    They’re so good that they’ve copied the price as well! The Anymore site is charging the Korean equivalent of $36.89 (not far off the $39) for these!

  • techgeek01

    Yep.  This confirms it.  I’m going to take a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 II for an iPad 3.
    Who wants an iPad 3, when it really will just be a re-badge Samsung Tablet, because of all the Samsung made or designed components?  Why settle on the iPad 3, when you can get the real deal?Plus look at this Smart Case.  Much better idea than the Smart Cover.  This at least gives your tablet more protection than the Smart Cover!Yep, Can’t wait for my Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 II with a Smart Case! :D

  • gareth edwards

    In the immortal words of Jack Black – “FUCK MY ASS!”   Seriously, surely this is gonna be like a red rag to the legal bull. No judge will be able to ignore this blatant brand infringement.  I get that Samsung are trying to prove they have balls but Apple and their legals are gonna be laughing so hard they might get spit on their macbook airs after seeing this.  Talk about making ammunitions for the enemy. Samsung – what the FUCK are you doing?

  • JobsMustDie

    So you must not like good LED TV’s? because samsung makes the best. Try finding a better TV because U will not.

  • superfreckles

    It’s just a cover. Apple didn’t invent tablets (they have existed for years, apple just changed the direction tablets took), nor did it invent covers for tablets. This is like saying a furniture company should sue another furniture company for making a couch in the same style. In the end it doesn’t matter who stole what, what matters is who makes the product the best (that’s right: best, not first).

    Apple makes good products. They shouldn’t have to worry about any copycats. And if they are, it really says something about the trust they put in their products’ quality.

  • techgeek01

    well, you might not want to buy your iProducts then.  They (almost) all have Samsung components in them.  ;)

  • superfreckles

    Excuse me sir, but without “copying” technology would have never advanced to the level it has today. It doesn’t matter who made it first, what matters is who made it the best. On top of that, Samsung technically made the screen for the iPad in the first place. They designed it. Not apple, Samsung.

  • superfreckles

    Wait until Apple starts making furniture. Next thing you know they’ll be suing a company for stealing their innovative and original idea for a dining chair.

  • superfreckles

    They’re playing the free market game. If you can make it, you have every right to sell it regardless of who made it first. Sure they may have signed some papers saying they wouldn’t use the the hardware they were making for apple anywhere else, but in the end it’s survival of the fittest.

  • superfreckles

    Progress was never achieved by a man with a great idea saying “ALRIGHT NOBODY CAN HAVE MY IDEA BUT ME, I OWN THIS IDEA, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH IT”. Progress is achieved by the man with the great idea allowing others to improve upon his idea and explore it for themselves.

  • wilkerlucio

    No, copy don’t make technology evolves, inspiring and making it better to. But look at these “Smart Cases” and compare to Apple Smart Covers, they look exact same!! It’s the worst kind of copy, instead of hiring good designers to make really new and cool things, they just to a full copy of other, its bad, there is no way to make it look good on how they do it.

    Also, the Apple made the display designs, Samsung just factory them.

  • superfreckles

    Why does it matter what country a company is based in? Also, I meet more people who love Apple than hate it. What people don’t like is the “can-do-no-wrong” attitude that Apple seems to have. Also, many people remember what happened to Apple in 1997. It’s hard to enjoy a company that’s quick to stab anyone it works with in the back.

    That being said, I love Apple products and will continue to buy them. I however feel no need to have a hate-fest against a company that technically did the same thing Apple has been doing for years.

  • superfreckles

    Yes, let’s sue all companies that threaten us. We can’t have competition, now, can we? That would be preposterous. Other companies are not allowed to compete with us, and if they try we must sue them all. APPLE FOREVER!!!!!

  • IamEzio

    go to engader / bgr and troll there !

  • mpc3

    Also… not much of a “case” is it?

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    Yes, let’s sue all companies that threaten us. We can’t have competition, now, can we? That would be preposterous. Other companies are not allowed to compete with us, and if they try we must sue them all. APPLE FOREVER!!!!!

    (Don’t be mistaken: I’m not copying or quoting your comment, I’m competing with it.)

  • IamEzio

    apple can by panels from LG ,there IPS panels are realy good..

  • Rxcketeer

    how is that competition? You make ur own stuff to compete, you don’t steal

  • supertino

    What happened in 1997? Seriously?

  • ConceptVBS

    At the end of the day Samsung isnt “Copying” Apple.

    So there are no legal basis to sue.

    /thread

  • supertino

    Let me get this straight. You are saying that it’s ok if others copy, sell and profit from your creations? So, for example, if I spend 4 years and $XXX million dollars on research and come up with a new drug, material, solar receptor, whathaveyou, it’s fine for my competitor to reverse engineer it and start producing the exact same thing (and very similar design) two months later? Of course, this is just an example but how is it different than what Samsung and its minions are doing?

    Why can’t they at least not copy designs or look & feel or what they call trade dress? I don’t understand this love for the “copier” than the company which invests in real research, has taste, takes risks and comes up with something original? Seriously, who are you people and what are you on? Do you wake up in the morning, read the news and go “Hmmm, this company copies everything.. I LOVE YOU!”

  • bluntrophy

    hello,welcome ,goodbye

  • Ulf J. Froitzheim

    Why? Maybe because it’s the software that counts.

  • Zachary Mashburn

    pharmaceutical companies do this everyday. Thats the difference between name brand drugs and generics. Its also the same thing as store brand food/products/ ie soda (like RC) and name brand like Coke or Pepsi.  I’m not pulling sides, but superfreckles is not entirely wrong at all. 

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    What!?

    Did Sir Isaac Newton copied The Gravity idea?
    Yes!, but he advanced it, contrary to Cooks, its creator who could not go further because he was not a mathematician.
    Not the case for Samsung!

    Apple uses Samsung technology, and apple pays for it.
    Not the case for Samsung.

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    Furniture design are patented.

    Try making Eames – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E… – chairs withOut paying royalties to his family and you will see the BIG hand of fairness on yr neck!

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    A droid droid!
    Indeed!

  • ConceptVBS

    I would be more careful cultofmac lumping Samsung into like that.

    You might hear Samsung’s legal department knocking on your door.  They could get you for slander.

  • Sheald

    A truly daft argument, rather easily debunked as in the case of this particular piece of “technology”, clearly there has been absolutely no improvement. Blatant copying doesn’t innovate anything!

    Really Samsung has done themselves a disservice here. When consumers look at something like this, they just start to associate the word “knock-off” with their product, so it will always come off as second rate to the original.

  • GiggityGoldStar

    Apple actually did have the first commercially available tablet for purchase by consumers.  They produced one in 1979.

  • supertino

    You seem very well versed with IP protection laws. Of course, I am being sarcastic. You are actually pretty clueless.

    Generics don’t show up until the original patents expire, otherwise (again) what is the point of investing millions in research if others can just leech off your work?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G

  • Eli Green

    sorry, apple coppied this from incase first. suck it. 

    http://www.goincase.com/produc

  • GiggityGoldStar

    Not exactly.  There is a law that gives pharmaceutical companies legitimate monopoly over drugs for 7 years.  After that, they must release the formula and allow generics to compete.  Not the same thing at all.

  • gjperera

    You are correct, but they need to have multiple suppliers otherwise they can’t meet the demand and besides I’m sure they want to have options.

  • robojerk

    Apple shamelessly copied the Smart Cover from someone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • robojerk

    Apple copied the design of that case first.  Apple is just as guilt of copying as anyone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • robojerk

    Apple copied the design of that case first.  Apple is just as guilt of copying as anyone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    Generics can be produced once the patents run out, usually after 20 years. I understand the position and am against software patents myself, but having worked in clinical research for some years I have to admit that I could not offer a better solution to recoup the enormous cost than granting a (limited) monopoly for marketing it. I’m pretty sure Apple wouldn’t really care if somebody started selling SmartCover copies in 2031. Pepsi and Coke already are “generics” of “soft drink” which compete by brand, not technical details, so the comparison doesn’t really fit.

    Everything concerning intellectual property needs a balanced approach. Neither of the extremes (Mickey Mouse copyrighted forever vs. immediately copying a product visually without adding anything) is acceptable, both will hinder further developments by either prohibiting it or making it not financially feasible. Most comments here tend to one of the extremes, either blaming everything on Samsung (who are not the maker of the covers) or on Apple (who have not sued the maker (yet)).

    I’m more concerned about Apple suing HTC for some core parts of Android, since these patents cover basically the ideas, not how they are implemented. The SmartCover discussion is not about the idea (plastic covers for tablets), but the multi-segment tablet cover/stand copied almost 1:1 from Apple, while there no doubt are several other ways to do this.

    Even copying the colors is particularly brazen. They could at least add some patterns, make a silver one or add a small pocket for Micro-SD-Cards. Anything that “adds” to it would have given the argument that copying helps innovation some weight. This way it simply says copying means being a parasite.

  • robojerk

    Apple copied the design of that case first.  Apple is just as guilt of copying as anyone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • robojerk

    Apple copied the design of that case first.  Apple is just as guilt of copying as anyone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    Really?

    Apple buy Samsung displays, Samsung and yr employer copy Apple.
    And you think that is the same thing?

    Worst, you wrote that with a smile on yr face?

    Oh, Humanity!

  • robojerk

    Apple fanboys are foaming at the mouth. CultofMac should update the story about how Apple Shamelessly copied the design of their cover from someone else.
    http://www.mobileattack.com/ge

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    Again really?

    So that gives them the right to steal?

    That was researched, it cost money.
    And copying yr competitor is JUST wrong!

    In the name of fairness companies that copy this blatantly should be dismantled.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    I guess it is a reference to no longer given licenses to Mac Cloners (stabbing them in the back) and switching back to the closed, vertically integrated model everybody wants to copy now.

    Or it refers to suing Microsoft’s ass off for actually copying the Quicktime source code and integrating it into “Video for Windows”, resulting in a settlement that forced Microsoft to buy Apple stock thus creating the legend that Microsoft saved Apple. A lot of Mac users felt betrayed (stabbed in the back) when Jobs announced that the war was over and Microsoft was now a friend.

    Or it is related to killing the Newton, which pissed of a lot of users, software developers and accessory makers.

    Or something else that makes even less sense.

  • Mike

    You are all retarded, including the author of this article.  Apple ripped off the design from InCase.  Yes this is a CASE, as it covers the whole device.  Apple people make my head hurt.

  • gjperera

    Not sure what you mean by “again really?”

    All I’m saying is that it doesn’t benefit Apple if they were to shut down Samsung (my response to original comment)…I agree with most that Samsung should not be copying/stealing from its competitors.

    I’m just stating the obvious, Apple needs more than one display supplier…Samsung happens to be one of them…so if Samsung goes down as a lot have suggested then Apple would be down to one supplier for its displays…

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    This kind of Manchester capitalism was killed more than a century ago all over the world because “survival of the fittest” proved to be destructive for society. It has been replaced by markets acting within the constraints set by laws, e.g. preventing one company from forcing out all their competitors by abusing their marked dominance, then forcing high prices onto customers.

    All “free markets” come with rules now, with different levels of government involvement in different countries. There are success stories for both the more and the less restrictive model, leaving no clear winner and requiring to decide on a case-by-case basis if the market model will actually work by itself or not.

    Patents, trademarks, NDAs etc. are some of these constraints. Since they are intended to protect investment in development while not stifling progress, their borders are not fixed and have to be interpreted by a court. So suing a company that has a different interpretation of these borders than yourself is actually playing the real market game as defined by the laws of whatever country you live in.

    Survival of the fittest would be Apple telling Samsung that they have to stop producing phones and tablets or Apple will not only take their business elsewhere, but also force any other phone maker that has to license patents from Apple that they may not buy from Samsung either if they want to keep their license. They are not allowed to do that and instead have to plea their case in a state licensed court, which might decide against them even if they are the “fittest”. I prefer it that way.

  • netnerd258

    They are just trying to cash in on Apple’s popularity, this is not fucking innovation buddy, if this is second hand idea Apple got elsewhere, then what did Samsung add to it in its 3rd hand iteration? Nothing, again, they want to cash in what the leading brand made popular.

    So Samsung made your TV, they are free to fuck you?

  • iHate_Is_Back

    Hey moron there’s only one God and crApple isn’t Him. I’m all for a few yucks but using the Holy Book and supplanting God with crApple with a direct quote from It shows how stupid you are. I suggest you reread the The Good Book especially the parts about how God is far from impressed when His people start stupidly misrepresenting the faith and supplanting Him with false idols. crApple is just another greedy whore company and not your God. IDIOT!!!!

  • Guest

    You seriously can’t tell me that this instance of “copying” is helping ANYTHING move forward.

  • pridon

    Yes, but was the incase a smart cover with magnetic attachments.  i suspect that Apple may have  a patent pending for the Smart cover or at a minimum licensed the technology.

  • iHate_Is_Back

    Ahhhh good ol Sammy is up to it’s old tricks again. Considering ol Sammy is one of the key frontline soldier business partners for The Great Evil it’s no surprise to me that Sammy is ripping off crApple who in turn ripped off InCase. Watching modern day big business in action can be quite amusing. It’s getting to the point I’m going to need a score card to keep track of whose being the biggest thieving asshole.

  • superfreckles

    I never said Samsung’s was superior. My logic is that apple has nothing to worry about if their product is the best one, regardless of what other companies do. On the off chance that Samsung does sell things better, then Samsung either marketed it better or did something to improve the product (such as offering a more accessible price point). 

    Ultimately it doesn’t matter because the better company will sell more. There is no reason to be out raged or point fingers. 

  • superfreckles

    It’s a tablet case. A tablet case. I’m sure Apple is losing millions of dollars on it as we speak. Once again, things that look the same aren’t necessarily the same. Why should a person have to buy from apple only if they want the look of a certain case for a non-apple product?

  • superfreckles

    Copying can be its own form of innovation. Seeing as, in this case, the people seem to be more angry about copying Apple at all than they are about the way Samsung is doing its copying, I am responding to copying in general. A great deal of the technologies we have today came to be from innovators who took something somebody else made and made it so much better that they outsold the original.

    Even though Samsung’s isn’t better, they still should be allowed to. Let them dig their own whole. No reason to punish them for an action that could potentially be beneficial if another company did it. 

  • Abdullah Essa

    You shameless writer and people. read carefully Samsung didn’t copy smart cover. Anymode did that different companies. 

    On other word if Incase made the cover for Samsung, would we blame Samsung for that!!!!

  • superfreckles

    Not sure how they’d be “fucking” me. 

    Also they’re not selling the iOS, so your argument is irrelevant. That’s like saying the inventor of LED screens is the only company that’s allowed to profit off of LED screens. Share. 

  • superfreckles

    Good. The more people who get my message around, the better. 

  • superfreckles

    I’m afraid not. Competition is to see which of several competing groups can make the best of a certain object. Who makes the best monitor? Who makes the best tablet? If a tablet looks similar it will be its function that changes things. Who cares if they copied a measly tablet CASE though? The more people who make cases, the more stimulated the competition will be. Whoever can make that case for the best price with the best materials wins in the end. 

  • superfreckles

    That could be Apple who wins!

  • superfreckles

    Yeah, but there are always slight differences in between models and you cannot sue just because something looks similar. I’ll get pissed about copying when Samsung comes out with an exact iMac replica with the samsung logo on the back instead of the apple logo being the only difference. For now? Not a big deal. 

  • superfreckles

    It’s a reference to all three, though not quite so direct. There was a keynote speech in 97 in which Steve Jobs was a completely different person. Within five years he went from a guy everyone admired and thought would be amazing to a guy that did nothing but trash talk his previous partners in an attempt to run them out of business, accuse people of copying him when they never had (some had, but a great deal of Job’s “you copied me” claims never had any proof what-so-ever and could not be relied on as truth), and started his arrogant apple-is-better-than-everyone routine. I love Apple products. LOVE THEM. However, I am not a fan of Job’s attitude and the way he talks about previous partners. 

    In the end it doesn’t matter who copied who (and, by the way, Apple blatantly “stole” things from microsoft on multiple occasions!). Going around whining about it publicly is a dick move and it’s only something people who feel threatened do. Apple copies Microsoft who copies *nix who is copied by Apple who Microsoft copies. 

  • superfreckles

    Oh and PS: the court dismissed that lawsuit. Apple didn’t win. Anyone who actually reads court files knows that.

  • MidahoX

    The smart case of Apple is only covering the front. This one covers the front and back, also there is a space for back camera. Can you see. They did add some new stuff too it. It’s not a 100% copy. And no Apple didn’t make this design. They hires cheap labor in China to make them and sell them with an overpriced tag.

  • level380

    How can apple sue samsung for this? They are not the makers!? It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES*…… think about that for a min…

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    Yes but don’t tell the fanboys this, they think apple created it, cause apple would NEVER steal…..

    So let me get this right, apple copies cover from company, thats ok…. another company copies cover (from apple or from goincase maybe?) and the fanboys scream for blood cause samsung certifies its use!?

    All these apple fanboys need to be cleaned out….

  • level380

    So apple improved on the design by putting magnets on it? WOW… This company improved on the design by putting a back on it to protect the unit!

  • level380

    You do know that APPLE stole the folding cover design from another company that was making them for the ipad1 units?

  • level380

    I agree samsung isn’t making it, but I don’t see why its pathetic for them? Should they have said no to a 3rd party company making a cover like another company?

    Next any product that uses black or white will be sued.

    The samsung tab 10.1 is ‘ipad’ like in the way its a big screen tablet with not much on it. Really, how many ways are there to make a thin 10″ tablet?

    The edges are different on the 10.1 vs ipad2, the back is flat (OMG?!) and the front is all screen.

    I really don’t understand these they copied it. The market wanted a thin 10″ android tablet, samsung made it.

  • level380

    You do know apple stole the smart cover design of a company making them for the ipad1?

    2nd you know samsung isn’t making the covers….. they only approved them for use. RTFA dude.

  • level380

    Read the article, did you notice “because the Tab 10.1 doesn’t have magnets to affix the case, the Smart Case instead affixes to the back of the Tab, which affords some additional protection from dings.”

    So samsung didn’t work with them and put magnets in like apple did, also read it again and It says samsung certifies, not samsung *MAKES* this cover……

    Get off your soap boxes, just cause samsung approves a cover to ‘work’ with its device, means that it made it, copied apples design or could be sue by apple cause it allows a cover to work on its device.

    Think about that for a min…… before you shoot your comments off

  • level380

    And what happened to it? DUD

  • ryu wink

    there’s nothing new here…
    this is just another subpoint in that HUGE list with the title ” Apple, leading the way!”
    and for those retards that think there is nothing wrong with this:
    why would a company create something really great and new, while other companies, that CAN”T THINK, just wait to see if that new product is a success and then just reproduce it?
    just look at the smartphone market before and after 2007 – when iphone came out -, and the tablet market before and after 2010 – when ipad came out -. if you can’t see a difference, then you really are a retard.

    let me put this in another perspective:
    look at your sneakers, are they NIKE? why didn’t you just bought that cheap rip-off named MIKE? they look the same… but in the end the original remains the best.

  • Robert Norris Hills

    WoW. Just wow. Another shameless bash post made by people that stole the idea previously. 
    InCase designed the ipad case, and apple stole it. http://technologer.net/2011/03

  • nbnde

    i’ve seen a lot of fails when it comes to rants, i’ve seen a lot of epic fails, too. This one Mr. Brownlee is the superlative of a fanboy driven rant, that backfires for ages.
    I don’t even wanna explain the asian hardware business to you and how a couple of families rule over Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan.
    Nope, i won’t even bring up the fact that incase introduced this cover already around 9 months ago and no i won’t even speculate that Apple actually copied it.
    You know what i would love to point out? Your CultofMac.com 300×250 banner in the right sidebar, which leads us to this site here:

    http://www.ion-factory.com/car

    This is just pathetic!

  • Yasaswy Nagavolu

    Chill out hez just helping to add material to Pulp Fiction with a dialogue from “Pulp Fiction”. 

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    Well, if they knew they cannot copy IP without serious consequences will they copy?

    ••• Not sure what you mean by “again really?”
    Discus can explain..

  • Alex Ray

    Lol these comment trolls.  :P  They get me every time. I love how they say it’s Just a case and yet they write 4 pages on why they are right about why design imitation is ok. Sure, there are different things about it.  Would they have made the back panel if they had magnets in their tablet? probably not.  Maybe samsung was hoping to get some money from the misinformed elderly that buy this case for their child’s ipad 2. 

    Heck, when I was scrolling through the page, I thought they were ipad covers.  

  • benmiller

    there is a difference between copycats and “copycats”. Of course copying is essentiel but if you copy, bring something of your own into it. Dont just simply copy the whole idea/product. copy and INNOVATE and not only copy.

  • Hampus

    Indeed, I mean, they didn’t simply get inspiration from the smart cover, they made the main part, the front cover, look exactly like the Apple Smart Cover in every detail from the colors to the four sections and how one of middle sections are a bit wider than the other three, it’s identical.

    There are several companies that did cases for the iPad that resembled the smart cover but none of them did an exact copy, for the most part they all use a different materials and/or have a very different texture/look to the cover itself, most of them also for some reason simply used three sections instead of four like apple.

  • Hampus

    The problem is that the look of the case is identical. I don’t know if Apple have any patents or whatever that protect the current design, a company normally would, but this is just shameless either way.

    There are several cases for the iPad form third parties that looks similar to the smartcover but not identical.

    “Why should a person have to buy from apple only if they want the look of a certain case for a non-apple product”

    That’s basically like saying why should people have to by an Apple computer if they want one that looks like one.
    Why should people have to buy from Nintendo if they ant a Wii?

  • Nikita

    WTF ?

    Samsung, my ass

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Five years before 1997 Steve Jobs was in the middle of switching NeXT from a hardware company to a software framework developer. At that point he was on almost nobody’s radar and not particularly liked. After being ousted from Apple in 1986, he was generally considered a charismatic genius who was also an asshole and a major pain for anybody who had worked for him. If anything he has become a “nicer” guy (not necessarily a nice guy) since then.

    And a lot of the “stealing” claims are justified. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all scrapped their gigantic OO-OS plans, because the couldn’t get them to work. Sun’s Java is modeled very closely after NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, which Apple bought and called MacOS X. All the GUI development tools copy the NeXT interface builder from 1988. A lot of the “modern” part in modern software is thanks not to some IT giants, but to a bundle of brilliant engineers put together by Jobs. This is one of many examples that can usually be traced to “Steve Jobs gets it”, meaning the products derive from a specific idea how technology should work, not from trying to re-implement some ideas that are currently trendy.

    The difference between copying someone’s idea and improving based on that idea is blurred, but few people have as much right as Steve Jobs to the claim that others simply copied their ideas, often screwing it up because they just imitate the shiny surface while not understanding the reasons for it. Microsoft is very guilty of this, especially the “shiny without brains” part.

    No doubt a lot of important developments came from Microsoft too and improving one’s products based on existing examples is an important reason for the speed with which computers develop, so some level of copying is desirable and happens on all sides. But just because everybody is doing it does not mean it is a draw. If I steal $100 from you and you steal $10 from me, you’d probably not consider this a fair deal. And in Apple vs. Samsung or Apple vs. Microsoft is is often justified for Apple to be pissed since the back flow of innovation from the other two in no way matches what they copied from Apple. So it does matter very much who copied who.

    There is a lot to be questioned about Apple and Steve Jobs, but not that they are a major force in pushing the industry forward and innovation leaders. Not because they were necessarily the first to do something, but because they were the first to do it right in a way that a lot of people actually want to use it. And this has a lot to do with how Steve Jobs sees the world, something that no other IT CEO achieves, and which directly results in “iPads” from Apple and “iPad copies” from Samsung and others, not the other way around.

  • GiggityGoldStar

    You had to use a stylus with it so it ultimately failed. However, like most innovators, they didn’t let that failure stop them, they continued to refine it and produced several more throughout the 80’s and early 90’s until they finally found a winning input method, touch.

  • GiggityGoldStar

    Funny, I was trying to support your initial argument and was replying to Zachary.

    Nothing you posted refutes what I said, in fact it supports it.  Like I said, the FDA allows the pharma co. that invented the drug to have a monopoly (patent) for 7 years and then they must release it to the public, unless they can come up with a new use for it during that time to extend their monopoly. 

    Patents are legally sanctioned monopolies, in case you didn’t know.  Also, I have no problem with the company that invents a product from having the monopoly for a given time.  In software, its 20 years, in pharma its 7.

  • Kelvin Mead
  • iphoneblog
  • Andy Shaw

    Is this cover magnetic? 

  • weltraumpirat

    EPIC LOL! I even like my Mac Pro, but this “Apple should sue everything” is ridiculous! Just remember the last iOS5 Keynote! Apple shows over 90% new features, which where based on Android OS… Now ask yourself… “Who is the copycat?”
    Apples iPad 2 smartcover is a copy of the Convertible Magazine Jacket, which was introduced in November 2010…  http://goincase.com/blog/2010/
    So, even Apple is not an angle!

  • Dominiq

    R**ards, samsung came out clear on that one and the cover wasnt really certified by them. Way to make hatred-news.

  • lapommefreak

    oh great, another Bible thumper.

  • Dan Oakes

    Maybe if some you actually looked at the product and the descrption you would see that this is not a Samsung product, but one that was made for a Samsung product. So be a fan boy of either Apple or Android, but at least be smart about it and realize this is just a third party product, and a prime example of how the world turns. Someone makes something great and everyone tries to make the same thing or tries to make it better.

    And if you don’t believe me, just check out how many snuggie rip-offs there are

  • supertino

    I was replying to Zachary actually (it says that right below my comment).

  • EvilEmpireRaiders

    All I want to know is if the Smart Case is less expensive than Apple’s Smart Cover.  If it is, and the Smart Case dimensions can hold an iPad, then MORE POWER TO SAMSUNG.  Even though I love Apple’s innovations, some stuff, like the Smart Cover, are a blalant price rip off.  

  • kennymatic

    When are they going to make one of these for the iPad 2? I want one.

  • Brandon Dillon

    You must have a really miserable life, being that you hate Apple so much, but yet you find yourself commenting on most of the articles posted here. What a waste of a life.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    That’s nor your message, it’s mine now. Go innovate a new one if you want to get it around.

  • Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira

    It is a BIG deal, Apple is A lone fighter against 2 big cartels, Windows PC vendors cartel and Android vendors cartel.

    Logo is nothing compared with the research and hard work that actually bread the product.

  • Tanaka Jiro

    Korea always copy other countries’ product and clutures. Finally, they claim they invente it.

    see
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

  • Guest

    Apple did not design this cover it’s from incase company design, exactly copied but not many site tell about. apple copied just like same as Samsung copied. Touch screen, UI and other infringement copied form other companies but they act like they invented everything innovation? You believe apple is? Maybe if you read only junk site like this it is, you believe fox news tells truth? This writer needs come up something and he may get call from Steve jobs for this.
    Apple is a copycat just like others. Apple lost lawsuit to Kodak

  • ??

    fucking ugly samsung. maybe they have no brain.

  • ???

    fucking ugly samsung. maybe they have no brain.

  • BaloneyGeek

    You do know that Samsung is the OEM for Apple, right? The iPad is technically a Samsung product.

  • ChristianIde

    Somehow the innovative Apple sleeve reminds me of the cover of my eight years old Sony Clié TJ-35 :-)
    http://www.pdamuseum.com/sony_

  • Needo

    are you really serious about this articel? Why the hell would you call yourself a Journalist? Go Quit your Job.

  • iHate_Is_Back

    Actually like most Apple fan boy’s you got it all wrong. I don’t hate Apple I just think people like you are a bunch of retarded hipster idiots for willingly taking it in the ass and going out of your way to support lie’s by Jobsy who doesn’t give two squirts of piss about you to begin with. If you’re going to respond to my comments get it right you silly douche.

  • Zomby2D

    Why would the fact that an outside company (not Samsung) has made a cover that is similar to inCase’s one for the first iPad (and that Apple copied) would be a legal issue between Apple and Samsung?

  • Zomby2D

    Considering Apple stole the Smart Cover desing from inCase and that this case is more similar to the original than Apple’s copy, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

  • Zomby2D

    One more reason to go the Samsung route…

  • Zomby2D

    You might want to cite your sources, because the oldest Apple tablet I can find is the 1987 Newton, that came way after the 1956 Dynabook.

  • Zomby2D

    The iPad and Galaxy Tab have very different form factors so no, this third-party case won’t fit.  But there are many third party cases for the iPad too.

  • lindy nian

    It really looks like the iPad smart cover,  i have bought a pink one via

    http://www.casesinthebox.com/p

    for $17.99 +free shipping, so great and the same as iPad 2. 

  • stefan

    wow one of the worst articles ever read on a blog…

    shame on you for publsihing such ****

  • Custom

    THIS IS TOO MUCH! Samsung you should be ashamed! what do you bring by yourself Samsung??? I really wanna know! Let’s say you do not have access to Android and you stop ripping others idea… Pathetic.

  • Cold_dead_fingers

    Are you stupid? Samsung doesn’t build iPads. Do you not know what OEM stands for?

  • Cold_dead_fingers

    Name the 90% of Android features. Oh, and I can do math so I’ll be careful to make sure everything in iOS 5 is 90% copied. Any other way, you’re full of shit.

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Shame on you samsung. Making your people and country look like shameless fools with no ideas for your selves! It’s such a laughable joke! It just makes them look ultra stupid. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Fuckin moron! LOL!! 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Are you serious?!?!? My friend you have to be totally brain dead. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Bull shit. Incase made nothing that looks like a smart cover. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Yea made by the fuckin chairmen of samsungs nephew! 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Your head hurts because you are a mindless moron with to many rocks rolling around inside of his head. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    The incase looks nothing like a smart cover nor does it act or work in the same way. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    That incase looks NOTHING like the smart cover. Further more the incase is a fuckin case! Not a cover. Works nothing like what apple made. Either way samsung fucking JACKED everything right down to the name of their dumb ass “smart case” They used the same name, and the SAME exact DESIGN. That fucking incase looks nothing like a smart cover you DUMB DUMB TWIT!!!!! Nimble minded twit.

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Apple were the first ones to think of the idea for a touch screen. Do your research. The ideas were marked down in the 70’s for an ipad like device. Before anyone was doing tablets. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    This is nothing like that. Samsung is selling products for the a higher price then apples in the phone market. They android phones for 16GB are selling for $299 with cheaper plastic hardware. A generic drug is supposed to be cheaper. Samsung are fucking robbing people blind and acting like they did something innovating. All they did was steal steal steal. Grand theft. Other android device makers were original in the way they went about making and branding their products. Motorola for example. You can put all the android phones together next to an iphone the only one that looks like one both hardware and UI comes from samsung. Same goes for android tablets. Put them all together and Samsung are the only ones that looks just like apple. Both in branding, package design, and actual product design. They are committing a crime. Grand theft. 

  • charliesheenhardcore

    Samsung is selling products for the a higher price then apples in the phone market. Their android phones for 16GB are selling for $299 with cheaper plastic hardware. Samsung are fucking robbing people blind and acting like they did something innovating. All they did was steal steal steal. Grand theft. Other android device makers were original in the way they went about making and branding their products. Motorola for example. You can put all the android phones together next to an iphone the only one that looks like one both hardware and UI comes from samsung. Same goes for android tablets. Put them all together and Samsung are the only ones that looks just like apple. Both in branding, package design, and actual product design. They are committing a crime. Grand theft. 

  • level380

    Fuck off wanker…..

About the author

John BrownleeJohn Brownlee is a Contributing Editor. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his wife and two parakeets. You can follow him here on Twitter.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in News | Tagged: , , , , |