Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Handhelds Patents The Courts Apple

German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab 314

With his first posted submission, ctusch writes "It seems Samsung has finally lost the battle against Apple in Germany. Today the district court in Düsseldorf ruled that Samsung must not sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Furthermore, it has banned Samsung Germany from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 anywhere in Europe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

Comments Filter:
  • by ZigZagJoe ( 1724868 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:24PM (#37354468)
    It doesn't; they're banning the german branch from exporting them to the rest of europe.
  • Finally? (Score:5, Informative)

    by SwedishChef ( 69313 ) <[craig] [at] []> 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:37PM (#37354710)

    If you don't recall from previous articles on this, Apple photoshopped the evidence to make it look like the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy Tab were similar. They also customized the screen on the Galaxy Tab to make it look more like an iPad instead of using the default screen.

    Here, I'll even give you links:

    Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case []
    More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung []

    In short: Apple won because they lied to the judge.

  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:39PM (#37354762)
    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?
  • by Riceballsan ( 816702 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @02:44PM (#37354832)
    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
  • 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 [].
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @03:13PM (#37355402)
    If its so unique, then you should have no problems listing its unique features. So far I've not seen any such list. Apples own filings are just a picture of a rectangular touch screen computer with rounded corners and a camera.
  • by RenderSeven ( 938535 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @03:44PM (#37355920)
    According to "The ruling by a Duesseldorf state court, however, only applies to direct sales from the Seoul, South Korea-based company, meaning distributors who acquire the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany." So Samsung Germany cant sell it in Germany, but Samsung in Korea can sell them to German distributors who can sell them in Germany. Doesnt seem like much of a ban at all, actually.
  • by Zoxed ( 676559 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @03:51PM (#37356044) Homepage

    My understanding (but IANAL and my German is poor) from the judgement [] (small PDF) and also from this article [] 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 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:Apple! (Score:3, Informative)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Friday September 09, 2011 @04:25PM (#37356542)
    Over-the-air updates are the WORST! How can Android claim to be competing when it doesn't require a bloated shovelware PC application and a half-dozen resource-sucking background processes just to update the OS?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:11PM (#37357116)

    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...

    This is a problem you can't get rid of, because it cuts both ways. Assume there exist cases where the court will ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiff and grant a permanent injunction. If there was no such thing as a provisional injunction, the defendant in such a case could use legal delay tactics and render the court's ultimate judgement irrelevant: by the time it comes, it won't matter any more. In the meantime, the plaintiff will have suffered the harm they sought to prevent through legal action.

    This is why most legal systems have preliminary or provisional injunctions. Both sides are required to give quick arguments, and if the court thinks there is a strong reason to justify it (i.e. a good reason to believe the plaintiff will prevail), they'll grant a provisional injunction. (In the US at least, I believe judges are also supposed to consider the degree and severity of harm the plaintiff will suffer if a preliminary injunction is not granted, and the plaintiff is expected to make a convincing case for this.)

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault