Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Patents Apple

German Appeals Court Confirms Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban 161

Posted by Soulskill from the can't-win-for-losing dept.
New submitter Killer Panda sends word that a German Appeals Court has upheld the injunction prohibiting sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Apple convinced lower courts to issue and uphold the injunction last year by making the case that Samsung's devices "slavishly" copied the iPhone and iPad. "Samsung, which is Apple's supplier as well as a competitor, has been trying to have the German decision overturned while also seeking other means to fight Apple. It redesigned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for the German market only and named it Galaxy Tab 10.1N to get around the sales ban. Apple challenged the reworked version but a German court last month rejected Apple's claims in a preliminary judgment." The European Union announced some more bad news for Samsung: they'll be investigating the company to see whether its use of patent lawsuits is illegally hindering other companies' use of standardized 3G technology. "Under EU patent rules, a company that holds patents for standardized products is required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Appeals Court Confirms Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban More

German Appeals Court Confirms Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban

Comments Filter:

  • Granted, I only read TFS, but to my defense, I got so disgusted that all energy left my body in an instant.

  • Princess Syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by killfixx ( 148785 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @01:50PM (#38880089) Journal

    Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

    I've seen this behaviour time and again, if it's pretty or popular, it's easier to let all manner of misdeeds slide.

    Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

    Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

    I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

    Isn't there some manner of oversight for something like this.

    If my son were to insult another student repeatedly, without offending the teacher, that later resulted in said student having a violent outburst, not only would my son be brought up on bullying charges (legit in my state), but so would the teacher for ignoring the bullying.

    But corporations are fully allowed to do this without repercussion.

    That upsets me.

    Shame on them.

    • Hmm, bad analogy, both Apple & Samsung are geeks and the popular kid here :)

      Two geeks offer services... one geek is ousted and leaves: the other geek abuses power and controls pricing, the ousted geek refuses to come back and a new geek sees opportunity and steps up.

      On that note, Samsung isn't exactly innocent...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 )

      You do realize that Samsung has a far longer history of offensive patent suits than Apple, right? They aren't some "innocent geek" being beaten down by Apple. And in this particular case the EU is absolutely correct in going after them over their attempted abuse of their 3g patents. Sorry, but just because Samsung is an Android manufacturer does not mean their actions are correct or legal regardless of how you feel about Apple's lawsuits against them.

    • I don't know how you run things, but corporations are not people in the EU.

    • Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

      And the German Court's solution to all this reminds me of the "Bells" episode of Black Adder; When Edmund consults the Wise Woman on how to keep his love for "Bob" secret for fear of (mistakenly) being outed, she gives him three options: 1) kill Bob; 2) commit suicide; or 3) go ahead and sleep with Bob and, to ensure no one ever finds out, kill everyone in the entire world.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      (Posting AC because I'm at work and I just have to say something in response to this...)

      Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

      Uh, they're being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour because they abused FRAND patents. They're being investigated because they acted anti-competitively.

      You may not like Apple but, for the love of gawd, pull your head out of your nether-regions and admit the truth - Samsung is abusing FRAND patents which _IS_ anti-competitive behaviour. If Apple wasn't involved, would you honestly be siding with Samsung on this?

    • The analogy really doesn't work, but yes, I've seen those 80s movies. Not to worry! The geek will stage an electro concert, or some strange shit like that, which will get the school on their side - with of course some hot cheerleader chick who all along had a soft spot for geeks.

      There is no geeky underdog in this real-life story. Instead what we have are two corporate behemoths, slugging it out - neither of which come out of this spotless.

      If I missed the point, and this analogy isn't based on 80s movies, th

    • Corporations are not people, there is no such thing as self-defence in the corporate world. We should be happy that the courts got at least one of the two trolls, it shows far more sense than they usually have.

  • I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Theaetetus ( 590071 )

      I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

      This has nothing to do with copyright. On the Apple hand, it's a design patent infringement suit. On the Samsung hand, it's an antitrust violation investigation.

      • Ok, it's a "design patent" on the same level as all the copyright stuff. I can't edit my post, or I'd change it to read "frivolous/bullshit/patenting blatantly obvious stuff that shouldn't be patentable". In any case, I thought the EU was trending away from this crap.

        • Design patents are hard to enforce. Really, really hard. One of the reasons you don't hear about them much is that they are damn near impossible to violate, except intentionally, and even harder to get a court ruling on. It's one of those things where if the judge doesn't laugh it out of the room int he first five minutes there is probably a good case. This case has been going on for months. At this point I think the better assumption is that the judge has been able to see more evidence and arguments than c

          • ...I think the better assumption is that the judge has been able to see more evidence and arguments than can be summed up even a dozen Slashdot articles, and he doesn't think it's a waste of his time.

            Speaking as somebody who actually has both an iPad and a Galaxy Tab and has accidentally grabbed one while reaching for the other, I'm inclined to agree. If Apple had copied a product of Samsung's as closely as the Tab resembles the iPad, Think Geek would make a killing selling torches and pitchforks.

      • Apple suit is Black Bezels and rounded corners, Samsung suit is about Standards, so but suits are BS. Apple has a bigger pile of BS than Samsung....

      • Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

        • Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (Score:5, Funny)

          by NIK282000 ( 737852 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:17PM (#38880383) Homepage Journal
          Tablet nothing, they invented the rectangular computing device. No computing device from here on may be rectangular in shape for that shape is owned by Apple.

        • Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

          Yes, you can tell how they're going after the entire concept of a tablet by the 25 specific aspects of Samsung's tablet they took issue with.

          You really shouldn't develop your opinions by the headlines that fly past on a site that generates revenue from fan wars.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Yes, you can tell how they're going after the entire concept of a tablet by the 25 specific aspects of Samsung's tablet they took issue with.

            They are all ridiculous things though. Screen in the centre? How many computing devices, or devices with screens for that matter, have you seen where the screen isn't in the middle?

            That was the OP's point, they are trying to claim ownership of fundamental design features of tablet computing devices.

            • Twenty five.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by toriver ( 11308 )

              I am sure Samsung can afford the best IP lawyers in Europe, and if they cannot counter Apple's claims, I guess they do have some merit? Or do you think Samsung just picked some bum off the street to represent them?

  • aplle sux (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 )

    Under EU patent rules, a company that hold patents for standardized products are required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price.

    but the problem with Apple is, they think they are special and want to pay less as all the other companies, as Samsung is having them pay exactly the same as the rest..

    • Re:aplle sux (Score:4, Informative)

      by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:53PM (#38880911)

      No, Apple thinks they are special and want to pay the publicly stated license terms. Samsung wants them to do what everyone else does and cut a side deal that waives license fees in exchange for patent and IP cross-licensing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      To be fair, that's not really the case. Samsung probably is charging Apple more, but it's because it has to to make up for the money Apple is making it lose by abusing it's patents.

      I feel really sorry for Samsung because their obvious patents are restricted by FRAND, but Apple's really obvious patents (a rectangular tablet) aren't.

      The real issue is that FRAND does have any clause in that allows you to waiver FRAND against abusive patent troll companies like Apple.

      But nevertheless, Samsung probably is legall

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by toriver ( 11308 )

        Why do people insist on inventing a connection between the two suits?

        Design patents are not relevant to FRAND rules. Coca-Cola do not need to license their bottle design to Pepsi.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xest ( 935314 )

          Are you seriously suggesting it's mere coincidence that for the first time ever, Samsung decided to use it's 3G patents in litigation and against a firm who'd been launching a global design patent war against it?

          You've got to be pretty fucking naive or a pretty retarded fanboy to not realise that Samsung's litigation was a response to Apple's litigation against Samsung. FRAND wireless and design patents may not be related in law, but Samsung's litigation using FRAND patents was clearly a response to Apple's

  • Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:02PM (#38880227)
    Galaxy Tab 10.1 is slimmer, lighter, has a higher res camera, a better screen and longer battery life than IPad 2. Oh, its also cheaper, and unlike iPad 2, can be bought "as is", without being tied to a mandatory 12/24 month dataplan, as is the case with iPad 2 where I live. I don't think Galaxy Tab is a shameless copy of iPad 2. I think that it is a significantly BETTER product that happens to look somewhat similar to iPad 2 (then again, all tablet computers look a lot like each other). Apple is suing because Samsung has produced a superior Tablet Computer. And some crappy court in Germany has decided to uphold this stupid claim. Galaxy Tab is the better tablet of the two, and Apple - being its typical agressive, domineering self - is suing to keep Korean Samsung's superior product out of people's hands, so they have have to go and buy an iPad 2 instead.

    • Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Moheeheeko ( 1682914 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:09PM (#38880307)
      but but......ROUND CORNERS!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

      I bought the first-gen iPad 3G the day it first went for sale in the US. It did not require a data plan then, and it doesn't require one now. Which backwater do you live in that forces you to purchase a data plan with, or to use, an iPad?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      And am I the only one who has noticed how the iPhone 4S looks a lot like the Galaxy S? If Samsung was copying Apple's designs then Apple must be just as guilty of copying Samsung's.

  • Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (Score:3)

    by forkfail ( 228161 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:04PM (#38880255)

    On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

    On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

      No, the court has taken the opinion that they're not using a "pretty standard UI" but rather, an unusually Apple-like one. It's the trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago, all over again.

      And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

      You might disagree with it, but it's not unambiguously crazy.

      • And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

        What I don't understand about this is that Apple (and likely most 3G device manufacturers) don't make their own 3G radios. Rather, they source components which use those radios. Isn't it up to the component manufacturer who creates their 3G implementation and sells it to the device manufacturer to cover these sorts of patent fees?

        To use a ham-handed example, I'm sure there are lots of patented technologies in automotive tires. If Goodyear makes a tire which relies on a licensed patent from Pirelli, I'

        • The component vendors don't have to pay. They just manufacture stuff according to customer specs. If said customer specs something that is patented, that's their problem. Not the manufacturers problem, who isn't going to check every worldwide patent every time someone asks for something. Who knows what the customer does with them anyway. So it's usually the problem of the customer to license the patents and surprise, the smaller outfits often forget this step because they assume the manufacturer took care o

  • Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lashat ( 1041424 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:08PM (#38880297)

    The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

    http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg [mobile88.com]

    Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Theaetetus ( 590071 )

      The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

      http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg [mobile88.com]

      Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

      That's more about how narrow design patents are. Which is kinda the point - Samsung really had to work hard (or, rather, not work at all) to infringe the iPad design patent.

      • A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

        • A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

          It wasn't the basis. The design patent covers the entire design, not just "a skinny bezel". Lots of other tablets - the Xoom, the Prime - have skinny bezels, but don't infringe the design patent.

      • Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kartu ( 1490911 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:28PM (#38880501)
        Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge. She agreed with the point that "plain design can be patented" when refering to a device with front end dominated by screen. I guess she has never walked into a TV store. Thing black bezels, slightly rounded rectangles all over the place. Oh, and without "innovative apple" this time, quite naturally.

        • Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge.

          Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

          • Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

            Isn't that weird, though? In my time, you branded your stuff if you wanted it to be unique and to avoid confusion, you didn't leave them plain and then sued everyone else into branding theirs.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by oxdas ( 2447598 )

              This is what the Dutch court, right next to Germany, ruled last year. It held that Samsung did not violate Apple's design claims (the same ones Germany says they did). The court pointed out that by choosing a functionalist design, Apple was deserving of less protection.

          • Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front.

            Galaxy Tab 10.1 does have [wikipedia.org] a Samsung logo on the front, right beneath the screen.

            • Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front.

              Galaxy Tab 10.1 does have [wikipedia.org] a Samsung logo on the front, right beneath the screen.

              Looks like that's a later, post-injunction model (the date on the picture is Sept 11, 2011). Here [talkandroid.com] is the official release announcement from Feb 13, 2011, with no logo.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kartu ( 1490911 )
            Let me cite things that Samsung might have done differently not to infringe upon Apple's "community design" according to Apple's lawyer (it might sound like a joke, but it IS NOT A JOKE): For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surf

            • Let me cite things that Samsung might have done differently not to infringe upon Apple's "community design" according to Apple's lawyer (it might sound like a joke, but it IS NOT A JOKE): For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. [A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance. http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/230535/apples-helpful-guidelines-competitors-avoid-patent-infringement [itworld.com]

              Yes, exactly. Doing any one of those would have had them avoid infringement. Say, an identical Tab 10.1, but the speaker opening is two slots with square ends, or a bunch of pinholes. Or an identical Tab 10.1, with the Samsung logo on the front. Or a Tab 10.1 with two rounded corners and two squared corners. Or, the 10.1N, which is identical to the 10.1 except that the metal bezel wraps around two of the front sides.

              Honestly, design patents are narrow. It's easier to not infringe one than it is to infringe

              • Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition -- not really about design patents at all.

                I'll hit some highlights:

                Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.

                Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.

                Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definitio

                • Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition

                  [Citation needed]

                  And it's going to be an uphill battle since every manufacturer, including Samsung in the 10.1N, incorporates at least one of those options. Clearly, unlike you, manufacturers and designers don't find them ridiculous, restrictive, or competition-destroying.

                  But let's see some specific examples of each design option that you claim are ridiculous, and can't be done because they would destroy the competitor:

                  Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.

                  Motorola Xoom 2.

                  Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.

                  Archos 101.

                  Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definition of obvious.

                  HP Touchpad.

                  Oh, and the rounded corners here, as in the phone/tablet itself, are an engineering integrity issue, and have nothing to do with design.

                  Lenovo Stylus Thinkpad.

                  Front surfaces that contain "substantial adornment" -- another transparent attempt to try to force competing products to look stupid. The trend has been for decades to minimize "adornment".

                  Motorola Xoom.

                  Bezels that are not thin -- again, an attempt to force obviously bad design.

                  Archos 7.

                  • Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

                    alternative smartphone designs

                    and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.

                    If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.

                    Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be disho

                    • Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

                      alternative smartphone designs

                      and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.

                      Hey, buddy, did you miss the fact that this article, the headline, and the thread title are all about tablets?

                      But seriously, if you're that bent out of shape because I provided examples of tablets that are distinct from the iPad rather than smart phones that are distinct from the iPhone, I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.

                      If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.

                      Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be dishonest or are really just that knee-jerk blind.

                      You were saying that all of those alternatives were ridiculous and poorly designed. I'm sure Nokia, Samsung, HTC, HP, RIM, and others would love to hear that you think

                    • Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

                      alternative smartphone designs

                      and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet?

                      Also, from the same post you quoted:

                      For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. [A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance.

                      ... so before you jump off into "bu-bu-bu-but we were only talking about phones, and you're talking about tablets and tablets aren't phonesandsoyou'rewrong!!!11One!" we were also talking about tablets.

                    • It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.

                      The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones. If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints. Is response time factored into your compensation package?

                      I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.

                      I'd be interested to see a list of recent, successful phones that don't infringe on what Apple considers their design space.

                    • It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.

                      The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones.

                      As quoted by the great grandparent post, the points - per Apple - included both smartphones and tablets.

                      If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints.

                      From your post: "The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent."

                      If you can't keep track of whether you're discussing tablets or not, I really can't help you.

                    • Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand or even follow through on your own offers.

                      Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up. As I recall, you used similar misdirection there, too.

                      This means this really is just dishonesty -- you're trying to distract people from very real problems in blind defense of a company th

                    • Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand

                      Your earlier post: "every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about."

                      Pot, meet kettle.

                      Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up.

                      Actually, I provided several page references. You even copied and pasted one such page, claiming it didn't include measurements. I then pointed out the specific measurements in the paragraph that you claimed didn't exist. You then got huffy and said it wasn't worth yo

                    • See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.

                      You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true. That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.

                      Also, you did not

                    • See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.

                      Yes, I have. Go back to that thread. Specific page numbers are quoted repeatedly.

                      You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true.

                      Thanks for finally admitting it. Only took you how many days and posts?

                      That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.

                      Except, as you admit, there was no falsehood. You can't even keep two sentences consistent, you're so busy calling me names.

                      Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements.

                      You've already had to backpedal on the existence of measurements in that thread. You've also had to backpedal on whether or not you mentioned tablets in this thread. Care to backpedal again on whether two different page numbers are ment

                    • Okay. One. More. Time.

                      You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.

                      You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo. If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.

                      Also, I very clearly pointed out

                    • Okay. One. More. Time.

                      You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.

                      You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo.

                      As I said, that you can't read German isn't my fault.

                      If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.

                      See the original post. See the page number. See you frothing in impotent rage and refusing to admit that you see a number there. There are four lights, Captain.

                      Also, I very clearly pointed out both page numbers in my last post.

                      You also very clearly claimed that there was only one. Get your story straight.

                      You either don't read when people reply to you, or (more likely) don't like being caught in your blatant falsehoods and so attempt to cover up for them with smoke and mirrors. Pity that doesn't actually work in practice with people who know what they're talking about.

                      Did you mean yourself? The guy who claims he read the brief and there were no measurements, then admits there were measurements after being repeatedly prompted, and then finally admits he never read the brief and can't r

  • One company selling overpriced gadget is suing another company selling overpriced gadget. In two years all their infringments will be resolved by everyone buying Chinese $100 full-featured tablets.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by toriver ( 11308 )

      Overpriced how? If it sells a lot it is by definition not overpriced since people are willing to pay the price. Unless you somehow feel things should be sold at the cost of materials, or companies should be forbidden from profits.

  • But they do... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MrCrassic ( 994046 )
    A few days ago, I was in Best Buy looking for a new external hard drive. While I was trying to get over the insane price markups, a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest [notebookcheck.net] models [notebookcheck.net], and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

    Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:But they do... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:55PM (#38880933)

      Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete replicas of their products, but the "nods" they include in their designs are pretty obvious.

      Take a look at this Samsung product [engadget.com]. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.

      There are certain basic concepts which recur over and over in product designs. Black looks good, certain things look better flat rather than curved, make the flat thing shiny for bonus points, a border around the main area of focus (screen/photo) helps isolate it from the background, a chrome/metal trim along the edge makes a good highlight. The only thing that's changed is that suddenly Apple is claiming that they own these basic age-old design concepts and nobody else is allowed to use them in certain types of new products.

      • Take a look at this Samsung product. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.

        Rotate the picture by 90 degrees, and all similarity disappears. Or let's put it this way: If the Samsung tablet of 2011 had looked exactly like the Samsung photo frame from 2006, not just from the front, but from the back and the sides as well, then (1) Apple wouldn't have the slightest chance in a lawsuit, but that wouldn't matter because (2) no shop would even put the device on their shelves, for fear that customers might die laughing and then sue the store.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      its a thin black laptop everyone stop and bow to apple, look at a Gateway NV, or a Dell Inspiron R or even Z series, how about a Toshiba Portégé, they OBVIOUSLY ripped off apple

    • I forgot to add:

      a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest models, and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

      The MBP is not the origin of that svelte, flat look. This was the laptop I owned [lenzg.net] in 2000.

  • If Clark and Kubrick were still alive they'd sue both Apple and Samsung since both are clearly knockoffs of their original featureless black obelisk.

    • Actually, no, there was a tablet computer in the movie "2001" that looked just like an iPad. That's prior art.
  • Surely they can just claim to have ripped the design off directly from Star Trek: TNG, like Apple did?

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close