Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

Comments Filter:
  • Apple (Score:5, Funny)

    by Haedrian (1676506) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:22PM (#37354434)

    Driving innovation in the field of shapes forward.

    • Re:Apple (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wsxyz (543068) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:28PM (#37354542)
      Obviously the judge didn't bother to read the evidence or he would have realized that the whole case is just Apple trying to patent rectangles.
      • Re:Apple (Score:5, Funny)

        by Haedrian (1676506) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:29PM (#37354586)

        Its a ROUNDED rectangle.

        I wrote the innovation in allcaps so you wouldn't miss it.

        • Re:Apple (Score:5, Funny)

          by wsxyz (543068) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:32PM (#37354624)
          Well it doesn't really matter because it's a well known fact that German judges make their decisions by drinking a few liters of beer and then flipping a coin.
          I mean, it's not like anyone who actually considered the evidence and listened to the arguments would find for Apple.
          • by Haedrian (1676506)

            I am still trying to work out what happened in the actual court.

            "I think these two pictures look the same"
            "Yeah, I think so too"
            "Agreed?"
            "Court is adjourned"

            Surely you hardly need more than a few minutes.

            • by wsxyz (543068)
              That was only the preliminary injunction.

              "Still the same picture?"
              "Yeah..."
              "Injunction confirmed."

              What else can you hope for in a place where a "late night before the law exam" refers to a party in the university pub? right?
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by SerpentMage (13390)

              I have an Acer Iconia tablet and my wife has the early Samsung 7" tablets. The reality is that the Samsung tablets are a ripoff of the Apple tablets. Look at the ports, Oh wait there are none (unlike most Android tablets). What about the connector? Oh wait it looks just like the Apple (even though most android tablets are not like that). The reality is that Samsung is ripping off the design of Apple...

              • by D-Fly (7665)

                While there is probably some truth to the notion that Samsung took the best external design elements of the Ipad for the Tab, it's sort of ludicrous to ban their product because of it. The underlying principle of the law in the US as I understand it is that Samsung can't sell something that confuses buyers into thinking that they are actually buying an Ipad. I imagine that the basis of the German law is similar.

                I am quite surprised that Apple actually won this case, and dare I say that I think Apple is prob

                • by gstoddart (321705)

                  The underlying principle of the law in the US as

                  Yes, but this is Germany.

                  What is the underlying principle of the law there?

                • The underlying principle of the law in the US as I understand it is that Samsung can't sell something that confuses buyers into thinking that they are actually buying an Ipad.

                  No, german law (and that means the rest of the world except of the US; obviously) is not similar.

                  If you "invent" something and give it a "unique" look and feel, I can not just copy "your" look and feel.

                  As a matter of fact I have not much clue about this law suit (I have more important stuff to do). But it embraces how less clue most /.

              • Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

                by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Friday September 09, 2011 @04:23PM (#37356524)
                Except that the real reality is that Apple ripped off the design of many tablets that came before it.... Damn those pesky facts, they always get in the way of a good argument!
                • by idontgno (624372)

                  Damn those pesky facts, they always get in the way of a good argument!

                  That's OK, at least German court has a proper lack of respect for facts. They don't let facts push them around, no siree.

                • by leenks (906881)

                  Such as?

          • Re:Apple (Score:5, Funny)

            by ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:37PM (#37354706)
            The judge probably had the decision written on an iPad.

            "I find in favor of Sam^H^H^H...what...uh...oh, here it is: Apple! I could have sworn I wrote something different, earlier."
    • More like Apple: Finding ways to squeeze licensing fees out of Android handset/tablet makers, much like the rest of the industry.
      • by aiken_d (127097)

        That's generally what happens to me-too players in a fiercely competitive new market, at least if the first movers are aggressive with IP. I'm not defending it, just saying it's how the world works.

    • I read about this originally in this Techcrunch article:
      http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/09/apple-ftw-german-court-upholds-galaxy-tab-10-1-sales-ban/ [techcrunch.com]

      In it, they link to the design in question, Community Design 000181607 for the iPad:
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001 [scribd.com]

      Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!

      • by wsxyz (543068)
        Wow. I'll bet if the judge had seen that document he would have decided differently!
        • I realize you're trolling this story making a ton of posts (10 at the time of my post, all trolls) ridiculing anyone that has bad things to say about Apple, but your response is completely nonsensical to mine, making it not even an amusing troll.

          The judge obviously did see this document, as it is purported to be the Community Design (what people are calling patents) in question around which this case revolves.

          The judge has decided that, "Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solut

          • by wsxyz (543068)
            I only ridicule those who think they have a better grasp of European and German law than German judges.
      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!

        Wow! This makes all the dumb patents look insignificant.

        I'm going out today to register rectangular bricks. I'll be able to sue every builder in the world for using my design.

      • by Ster (556540) on Friday September 09, 2011 @07:24PM (#37358278)

        I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

        It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

        -Ster

        • golly, a phone-call icon that has a phone handset on it. a notebook icon that looks like notebook paper. contact information that looks like a head-and-shoulders of a, um, contact.

          apple sucks. they do evil.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      Did they say anything about how it feels? Maybe if they'd ignored feel in the first place they'd have put Microsoft out of business in 1994.

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      My monitor could be prior art. Its a rectangle with rounded edges so I don't cut my hand against the edge when closing the laptop lid.

    • by Kenja (541830)
      Its not prior art because its not made by Apple, duh.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Telvin_3d (855514)

      Because, despite many misleading headlines and voluminous nerdrage, this has never been about tablets in general. Apple didn't sue Samsung for making a tablet. Apple sued Samsung for making a tablet with some very specific features and designs that they claimed were stolen from protected Apple designs. After looking at the case, the courts have agreed that those very specific features were indeed used improperly.

      But all the headlines are "Apple claims they own all tablets" and then we get posts like yours.

      • by Haedrian (1676506)

        Care to toss me a link to an article listing these very specific features?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Kenja (541830)
        Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode. If that doesn't just about cover all tablets what does?
        • Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode. If that doesn't just about cover all tablets what does?

          Everybody had those on Deep Space 9.

        • by toriver (11308)

          Do they? Is that the complete court filings compressed into one sentence? Where did you read the court filings? (And doctored documents posted by bloggers do not count as court filings.) Is it possible Slashdot posters and the judge have different sources?

        • by uniquename72 (1169497) on Friday September 09, 2011 @03:54PM (#37356086)

          Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode.

          Interesting, considering that the first iPad didn't have a front-facing camera, and those of us who thought that was a ridiculous oversight were called Apple-hating trolls and told that a camera would be a useless addition.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            What, you've never complained about a missing or broken feature in an Apple product before?

            My favorite is still this forum thread [ipadforums.net] where a guy is complaining that he's using "hun" to address his girlfriend, and iPad email and chat apps always capitalize it; so he was asking for a way to add his spelling to the spell checker dictionary - and, apparently, it is simply not extensible in iOS. The advice he got from a resident Apple fan:

            "call her something else besides hun? Honey? Baby? Babe? Seems like an easy f

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Riceballsan (816702)
        Well the patent in question pointed out was more or less just a picture of a rounded rectangular device with a touchscreen, no details on technical implimentations. Evidence itself was more or less just pictures of the layout and shape of the ipad next to the samsung galaxy, with the galaxy's images resized and resolution changed to match the ipad
      • It's also because Samsung was involved in manufacturing processes for Apple and then Samsung comes out with tablets (and modifications of Android) that are a lot like the iPad (more so than other tablets).
        • by rhook (943951)

          Supplying components to Apple != being involved in Apple's manufacturing process.

    • And from conception it was supposed to be a big iPod Touch anyway, so they're still copying Apple.

    • by Henriok (6762)
      No, since Apple's design patent is from 2004. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/13/apple_tablet_mac/ [theregister.co.uk]
    • I know people seem to forget things, but around that time the rumor mill was in full gear speculating that Apple was creating a secret "tablet-like" device. I believe it all started with this patent: Apple Reveals Secret Notebook Tablet [patentlyapple.com]. The patent was revele

  • Apple! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:23PM (#37354464)

    Too bad Apple can't sell their iDevices on their own merits, rather than snuffing out the competition!

  • I hate those guys - Indiana Jones

  • Finally? (Score:5, Informative)

    by SwedishChef (69313) <craig@netwo[ ]ss ... t ['rke' in gap]> on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:33PM (#37354642) Homepage Journal

    According to the story Samsung Germany is appealing the decision so it's probably not "final". In addition, the ruling only bans Samsung Germany from selling into the EU marketplace; other Samsung divisions can sell into it.

  • Who would have thought that, in 2011, we would be complaining about the damn German Capitalists ruining Europe?

    I guess the old motto still holds true: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

    • by blair1q (305137)

      I would've thought by now we'd be pissed that the people on Ganymede were running an unobtainium cartel and driving up the price of telekinesis.

      But, it's still Germans. And not one flying car.

  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:46PM (#37354874)

    The Apple Defenders are cracking me up defending this.

    The judge had the gall to say "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer". Seriously.

    If you don't understand how absolutely ridiculous that is, the idea of a "minimalistic design" (even if you then go into details about silly things like rounded corners, no buttons, etc...) as something you can own, then there's simply no hope for you.

    Germany's a bit nutty anyway, so I don't put too much stock in it. Worst case Samsung should just add a little button somewhere, change a few angles here or there, and resell. Then it can continue the slow domination of Apple again.

  • Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

    by Solandri (704621) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:52PM (#37354996)
    For those of you who think Samsung copied Apple merely because the Tab and iPad look similar, look again [solandri.com].
  • Based on what the judge wrote, it sounds to me like he has his hand in the Apple's cookie jar.

    OS News [osnews.com] has more info on this.

    • by wsxyz (543068)
      You must be right.
      German judges are so well known for their corruptibility, after all.
  • by Zoxed (676559) on Friday September 09, 2011 @03:51PM (#37356044) Homepage

    My understanding (but IANAL and my German is poor) from the judgement http://www.lg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/presse/pressemitteilungen_ab_2009/13-11.pdf [lg-duesseldorf.nrw.de] (small PDF) and also from this article http://www.chip.de/news/Galaxy-Tab-10.1-Verkaufsverbot-endgueltig-bestaetigt_50819592.html [www.chip.de] is that this is not a decision on the patent, but simple the rejection of Samsungs attempt to have the provisional injunction lifted. The real case is due maybe mid-2012 !

    • by aiken_d (127097)

      Shhh. That kind of perspective is not welcome here. It's all about the outrage and gnashing of teeth, mere facts shouldn't get in the way.

    • by Rich0 (548339)

      This is the problem with the courts.

      An provisional injunction that prevents you from selling something for a year is effectively a judgment. What, is the court going to say Ok, we were wrong, Samsung can go back in time and sell their tablets? No, they'll probably say "ok, in 2013 you can go ahead and sell your 2011 tablet" when the product isn't even being manufactured any longer...

  • http://www.amazon.com/Archos-32-Internet-Tablet-Android/dp/B002OL2PLU

    Archos 5 Internet Tablet was released September 15th 2009 with android Apple iPad April 2010. Archos should sue Apple to block the iPad in Europe. Jobisan Fanbois starting to see how this could get out of hand? no? figures

  • I think we know were the real Apple Fan Boys live!

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...