Apple Loses German Court Bid To Ban Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, Nexus Phone 193
chrb writes "Apple has failed to get a patent ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1N and the Nexus phone in Germany. Presiding Judge Andreas Mueller stated, 'Samsung has shown that it is more likely than not that the patent will be revoked because of a technology that was already on the market before the intellectual property had been filed for protection.' The patent in question covered list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display. This news follows the recent Appeals court ruling that upheld the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban."
Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple patents technology that they didn't invent and tries to stop samsung nexus and fails
Father Steve will hear of this, Germans!!! (Score:2, Troll)
He will return one day! And when he does, you'll have to answer for this sin!!!
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
They got the court injunction to prevent Samsung sales in the crucial run up to Christmas. Mission accomplished. They don't care that it's now thrown out of court.
Phillip.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is widely known that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG [wikipedia.org].
No, if anything, it is is widely claimed. And for that matter it isn't widely, but narrowly - specifically by LG.
Re: (Score:3)
both Apple and LG could have gotten their inspiration from the same source.
...so could Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
...which could be any of the various touchscreen-only PalmOS devices of the early/mid 2000s.
Re: (Score:2)
Or newton OS from the 90s...
Re: (Score:2)
Well it sure as hell seems to be widely *assumed* that samsung "stole" the design from apple. Yet, guess what? Neither of these are the answer - neither apple stealing nor samsung, and are just idiotic mindspew.
The reality is that independent invention, where a bunch of people come up with the same glaringly obvious shit at the same time (let's add internet access to...a device! for example), is a reality, a giant benefit to society, and law worldwide simply do not handle this properly.
It's not a question
Re: (Score:2)
OMG!
Both Apple and LG both got inspired by another product?!?!?!?!?
Shut them both down now along with Samsung. Find the product that inspired them and make it the only company in the world that can make anything that looks anything like it for the next 200 years.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Neither should be shut down or affected in any way.
Design - this is what we are talking about here, technical design - is a lot like art. To a very large extent, it shouldn't be allow to patent or claim copyright on design lines, just like you can't (or shouldn't be able to) for art. Technical design, just like art, follows trends and evolve together, yet independently.
All these patent infringement claims are getting ridiculous, regardless from who they come. It feels the same way as if the first car co
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I got your point. It wasn't that subtle ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then. :)
For a moment I was worried about you.
Don't scare me like that again.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case it seems very implausible that Apple copied the design, given that the LG Prada was announced the 12 of December 2006 and the iPhone was announced and demonstrated to the public on January the 9th 2007. So for them to have copied the design, Apple would have had to redesign the phone in less than a month.
It is far more likely that they are similar looking because there are only so many ways to design a touch screen phone in a "minimalistic" way, which clearly both LG/Prada and Apple were going for.
The Similarities between the LG Prada and the iPhone should, however, be used as evidence against Apple when they claim others have copied their design. If it is possible for two phones to be as similar as those two phones by coincidence, then Apple should have no case against the Samsung Galaxy.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to go with this position (above) simply because to be minimal, there are few ways to accomplish that for any given purpose. But you know, the same goes for Samsung's Tabs... minimal, and not too many ways to be minimal without looking like other minimal devices of the same type.
But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device. This is just ridiculous.
I'm going to need to patent the shape of a ball and then sue every maker of balls for design infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
I've already got the square ball, the pinball, the beach ball, the bowling ball and the brand name "Baal".
Oh, and I'm currently in court trying to enforce my patent on the pair of balls that you hang on the back bumper of a pickup truck. When I was 3 I had a pair of those hanging on the back of my Big Wheel. That's how badass I was.
Re: (Score:2)
But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device. This is just ridiculous.
While I agree with most of the rest of what you said, the original [phonearena.com] Galaxy Tab 10.1 [infosyncworld.com] - the one that started the lawsuit [engadget.com] - only had the Samsung logo on the back.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but they didn't. And Apple sued anyway.
Presumably just to be assholes - why compete on features/price when you've got money to burn on lawyers?
Re: (Score:3)
The claim Apple is making is that Samsung's devices are too similar to Apple's and might easily be mistake for Apple's when consumers are making purchasing decisions. And when Apple presented evidence, they did so in the form of deliberately doctored images where, among other things, they removed the brand markings from the Samsung device. Had they not done so, they would have had a harder time making their claim don't you think?
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
According to LG, the design was first presented in September 2006 actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Show me someone who thought they were getting an iPhone and ended up with a Samsung because they were "confused".
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So then you are saying that Samsung made so that there are people out there who are confused as to what they bought.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
Have any evidence to back that up? Have Samsung and Apple been increasing their prices?
Apple could maybe get away with it. Samsung, probably not, as people could just substitute into similar Android phones of other brands. But I personally haven't seen a price shift.
Samsung is defending themselves. (Score:2)
Apple and Samsung both are making a mess in the marketplace by trying to sue one another
Bullshit.
If a guy gets mugged by three other guys, and the victim of the mugging tries to fight back, would you blame the victim and muggers equally?
I don't think it's a coincidence that MS, Oracle, and Apple, all attacked Android at the same time, in the same way, and for the same reason.
Legal fees are insignificant (Score:2)
The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
As I understand it, Apple made about $14 billion last quarter, and Apple's legal fees were about $100 million. And Samsung is a bigger company than Apple.
For Apple, legal fees spent on bogus lawsuits are a great investment. Are you kidding? Banning the competition for about what they spend making, and airing, one TV commercial?
Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Iphones (Score:4, Interesting)
Motorola bans Apple from seling Ipads and Iphones and Germany :D
Sorry, german only: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Motorola-erwirkt-Vertriebsverbot-fuer-iPhones-und-iPad-1427712.html
Re: (Score:2)
This case is a farce. The claim is related to a patent on multiple pager (yes, those things that display a phone number) synchronization over wireless networks. Motorola claims that iCloud on cellphone network infringes this patent. It illustrates so well the fabulous world of patent infringement court cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!
So you didn't read Apple's patent claims, just what was said on Slashdot. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!
So you didn't read Apple's patent claims, just what was said on Slashdot. Congratulations.
With that in mind, what do you think of the case of the original iPhone looking very much like the LG Prada, which was clearly the first design taking phones in the "iPhone design direction"? LG wasn't so litigious as Apple, so it haven't been tried in courts around the world, but the "rip-off" is at least on similar level as Samsung and iPads. Should iPhone have been banned?
Re: (Score:2)
If LG didn't file a lawsuit, it's because they had no case whatsoever. Had they foreseen a potential gain, you can be sure they would have sued Apple to get it.
The main problem being that LG did not file patents around the design of their Prada, or to be more precise, no patents that any reasonable court would have found the iPhone infringed on.
It's not a matter of whether or not the Galaxy S II is closer to the iPhone than the iPhone was to the Prada, it's a matter of a court finding the Galaxy S II infrin
Re: (Score:2)
It's a case of pot meets kettle.
Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho (Score:5, Informative)
English coverage at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/motorola-mobility-wins-second-german-ruling-against-apple.html [businessweek.com]
Good to hear (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good to hear the courts are not letting Apple leverage a patent that's expected to be invalidated in order to damage a competitor's business. Samsung did, after all, modify the "N" design to get around Apple's patents that applied to the 10.1, so they did their due diligence.
Any surprises here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Any surprises here? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a "Black-Rectangular-with-rounded-Corners-computing-Device" patent suit it's a "Hey-look-touchscreens-can-also-do-this" patent suit.
Re:Any surprises here? (Score:5, Interesting)
No surprise at all. But this is the goal of Apple in the first place. The smartphones and the tablets are like perishable goods -- the pace of new product development is fierce, so delaying a product by a few months has a huge impact on the bottom line. And that is what Apple is shooting for with patents that are at most borderline bogus.
This and a ruthless, magical marketing gives them a not insignificant edge, the quality of their products notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about much, much more than that
LOL, right, it's also about "The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark" and "Color gray appears as a rectangle at the front center of the device [the screen]". So much more specific decorative design elements!
Kinda looks like you don't even read what you link to.
Second page especially shows the absurdity of "copied wholesale" claims, those are god damn icons of god damn generic ideas, and not even very alike at that. The only icon with similar _feel_ is call icon, but then
Re:Any surprises here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I looked at that and hoped to find much, much more. Alas, I found much, much more of the same.
Most of the stuff they patented should be flat-out unpatentable. There were a few instances, such as in choice of icon colours, were I felt Samsung seemed to be needlessly imitating Apple's, but on the whole Apple seem to be trying to patent every nook and cranny they put on the damned iPhone. Some of these things are almost dictated by design constraints and natural analogues from prior OS, and some things are just part of a natural design trend towards minimalism.
I just wish everyone would stop trying to sue each other. It's god-damned ridiculous,
Re: (Score:2)
Goodness gracious! I'll grant the hardware similarities, but that link is comparing an old feature phone's OS UI with a not-heavily skinned Android phone. Those icons and that layout are stock Gingerbread. Aside from that and the use of gestures, the usage paradigms for iOS and Android (at least as of 4.0) are quite different and "how things flow" is also quite different.
Samsung's best defense here is probably a quick rollout of a 4.0 update.
Re:Any surprises here? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about much, much more than that:
Oh, bullshit. Talk abotu cherry picking... for every feature that's listed as 'similar' there I could list another one that isn't.
Apple:
Home button is round
Doesn't have camera on front
Doesn't have 'back' and 'menu' buttons
Samsung:
Home button is rectangular
Has camera on front (top right)
Has 'back' and 'menu' buttons
etc.
The profile is even better - it's nothing like an iPhone from the side. But you missed that.
Re:Any surprises here? (Score:5, Informative)
This tired old rounded corners whine again?
It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html [peanutbuttereggdirt.com]
It's an interesting link; I've seen similar before but not thought about it much. When you look at it it really looks like Samsung is copying Apple. Very interesting is the change in the unboxing experience [peanutbuttereggdirt.com]. It looks completely convincing.
Then you remember your first Nokia N95; a product released before the iPhone was available. Look at the Nokia unboxing experience [allaboutsymbian.com] which happens to be captured on the internet. Suddenly the audacity of Apple in claiming this as their own takes your breath.
Nothing under the sun is original; this is outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the 4x4 grid of icons with another row of 4 at the bottom is a bit of a rip off, but a novel invention worthy of a patent?
That wasn't even Samsung, it was "Android".
As an nexus owner... (Score:5, Insightful)
As the owner of a Galaxy Nexus bought from Amazon.DE and as a person that makes a living writing software, I am delighted to hear that Apple (or any other company) will have to make their 'buck' by making awesome products, and will not be allowed to curb competition because some idiot allowed them to patent 'list scrolling', or "whatever-shit-we-did-before BUT NOW ON A TOUCH-SCREEN MOBILE PHONE".
Re: (Score:3)
There should be a moratorium on gesture patents. Right now, we're in a state where we can't say that any new developments would be non-obvious to an expert. You could make a list of a million gesture controls over a couple of beers.
Defensive publication (Score:3)
You could make a list of a million gesture controls over a couple of beers.
Then make such a list, post it to the Internet, and get it into Wayback. This is the start of defensive publication.
The only advantage iPhone users have over Android (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that they get to see what's coming in their handsets a year from now by looking at the current top end Android models on sale. I hear NFC is undergoing the usual transformation from "iPhone users don't need that" to "our amazing innovation" in the next model, the same way multitasking, speech recognition, widgets and usable notifications did.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait! iOS 5 has usable notifications? You could have fooled me!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait
Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro (Score:4, Funny)
omg. you live with them don't you? they got you as you were going through the terminal after your flight landed. What's your name I'll try and contact your parents for you so they can come rescue you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well there's iBooks of course.
Google Books.
And iTunes.
Google Music.
And a much better ecosystem generally.
Getting an app rejected because it competes or might compete with a future Apple app is awesome.
Well there's regular OS updates.
Just like Android.
And no malware.
And no choice.
No fragmentation
And no customization.
Siri
Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo
It comes down to whether you value hardware features/tinkering or content/UI/general slickness more.
Android offers all of that.
Android is a copycat OS. To pretend otherwise is stupid.
Except the Android OS predates iOS.
How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0? (Score:3)
Well there's regular OS updates.
Just like Android.
One- and two-year-old phones are far likely to get an operating system update if they're "iPhone" or "Nexus" brand. Any other brand of Android phone is at the mercy of the often reluctant manufacturer. The iPhone 3GS was introduced in the second quarter of 2009 but still runs the latest iOS. How many phones from that era run Android 2.3 "Gingerbread", let alone Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich"? See previous Slashdot stories about abandonment [slashdot.org] and excuses [slashdot.org].
Except the Android OS predates iOS.
In what sense? The first Android phone to be sold was
Re: (Score:2)
Note that GP didn't say "Android Phone was older than iPhone".
What he said was Android OS was older than iOS.
Possibly based on wiki articles about the two.
Android OS SDK was released on 12 NOV 2007.
iOS SDK was released on 6 MAR 2008.
Now, arguably, he should have read further and found that the first version of "what
Re: (Score:2)
Any other brand of Android phone is at the mercy of the often reluctant manufacturer. The iPhone 3GS was introduced in the second quarter of 2009 but still runs the latest iOS. How many phones from that era run Android 2.3 "Gingerbread", let alone Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich"?
I agree that this is a problem with Android. Unfortunately, this is caused primarily by manufacturers and carriers that insist on building their own interface but are not prepared to support it. TouchWiz is why new Samsung phones aren't getting ICS or at least not in the near future. The hardware isn't an issue and getting ICS on it isn't an issue. The problem is porting TouchWiz and testing it on each device. The same goes for Sense from HTC and Motoblur from Motorola. This gets compounded even more
Re: (Score:2)
Android OS existed before iOS. Android was being developed since 2003.
That depends on how you define "being developed". iOS is NeXTstep (first release 1989) customized for the iPhone and iPad. NeXTstep predates even Linux. If such customization doesn't count, look at what Android looked like before it was quickly ported to touch-screen phones shortly after iOS came out.
Re: (Score:2)
Siri
Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo
Not to mention that Apple didn't develop Siri, they merely bought it out just before the Blackberry app was released and canceled on non-iOS development. So, in a sense, Apple didn't give us Siri, they took it away.
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes alone is a sufficient reason for not using the iPhone. I prefer a phone that I can plug in any PC and copy files too. No software or drivers to install.
Wow.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
now? lolz
this is the company that was patenting pull down menus back in the 80's even though they stole it fro xerox
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Apple invented the retina display! Samsung's AMOLED is just a cheap knock-off! Seriously, you're a despicable fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoooooooooooooosh!
Sorry, I almost got sucked into the low pressure void there.
I guess I'll have to go back to putting giant "disclaimer: this is joke, cupcake" on my obviously satirical posts.
Seriously, you just have no sense of humour.
DISCLAIMER: I think Apple's patent lawsuits against Samsung are silly.
Re: (Score:2)
You think I didn't see it was a joke just because you failed to make it funny? You think you're a satirist just because you make a joke about Apple's competition? You fail to see that you're still nothing but a shill, despite paying lip service to what anyone with half an eye can see is plain obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying too hard.
Good effort though.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never linked to a "lolz look at this" graphic - you will not find such a link from me, since I do not post them, as much as you're "pretty sure", I can assure you that you are mistaken.
I should have clarified - the ridiculous patent lawsuits [a new way to display data/a new way to show unlocking/a new way to open files... on a touchscreen!] are what I take major issue with. While Apple's pursuit of Samsung over the *design* issue is another matter (albeit one that I agree with Apple's position, if not
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that icon placement, rounded corners, and an unboxing experience should in any way be patentable?
This is what you believe?
Are you sure you are just not doing everything possible to feel the warm fuzzies for your chosen side?
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
I was going for satire. Apparently it's hard to tell actual facetiousness from actual argued positions on slashdot any more, such is the extremism. Pity.
Re: (Score:2)
s/cool thing nerds have been using for years/cool thing dumbed down for grandmas and crippled in the process/g
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the LG Prada, announced at around the same time - such that the iPhone and the LG Prada were displayed to the world within one month or so of each other - clearly the iPhone was prototyped/redesigned completely in that one month between Apple seeing the Prada and their unveiling! You've cracked the case, Holmes!
You also forgot to log in.
Battle of Waterloo: Won on Playing Fields of Eton (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology Battles Today: Won in the Courts . . . not in the labs.
The first step in creating a fantastic, new tech gadget . . . is making sure all the legal issues are worked out, even before you start developing and idea. If some court is going to block you down the road, there is no point in investing in a new project.
Ladies and Gentlemen, lawyers are now the first troops at the front of technology development!
fscking software patents... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
crafty move (Score:2)
I keep wondering what apple's drive is for stifling competition through use of litigation mired. Perhaps if they can control the mobile and tablet platforms there will be no way for any other entity to offer alternatives. Imagine the leverage you would have if you decide certain services *coughgooglecough* just don't quite work right on the platform you control. You can call the shots then.
who wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Apple. It's not Samsung.
The lawyers however...
Re: (Score:2)
I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
Re:who wins? (Score:4, Insightful)
In some sense both Apple and Samsung win. Small startup companies coming into this area now have to explain how they would take on either of these companies in an IP lawsuit and / or get licenses which will be so expensive their products become uncompetitive. The entire group of major technology patent holders is a cartel working together to steal from consumers by increasing prices and reducing the ability of the market to change faster than they are able to keep up with. With patent lawsuits like this running around they can afford to reduce R&D and just make money together with more limited competition.
Sure, Apple and Microsoft are deeply evil, but Samsung is a at least bit evil too, and Google is building up a huge load of patents whilst failing to give a clear statement and guarantee to protect free software companies, so even they are having evil effects. This is a bit like American Politics. Just because one side is bad, doesn't mean the other side isn't bad too. You don't become fair and balanced by asking a wolf and a hyena whether the sheep wants to be eaten.
Re:who wins? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:who wins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when did google ever have to give a statement to what they're doing outside of what they already did?
They said "we will not sue people with our patents". And have they ever sued with their patents, offensively?
no.
Apple sure as hell has. Samsung sure as hell has fought back. Barnes and Noble fought back.
Google isn't like American Politics, that's exactly why every "evil" company in the US hates them and has tried to shut them down continually, via corruption/bribery/lobbying/outright lies.
So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
Re: (Score:2)
wha? HTC didn't sue apple, that was a counterclaim in the lawsuit apple has against HTC.
Re: (Score:2)
In some sense both Apple and Samsung win. Small startup companies coming into this area now have to explain how they would take on either of these companies in an IP lawsuit and / or get licenses which will be so expensive their products become uncompetitive.
-- Kikuyu [wikipedia.org] proverb
Re: (Score:2)
But long term, they're hurting the patent industry.
So everybody wins!
Apple wins (Score:2)
Apple earns about $14B in a quarter, and only spends about $100M on legal fees.
Banning the competition with bogus lawsuits is huge bargain for Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't ...
... Except for Motorola. And HTC. And ...
to create a design that is actually _better_ than the iPad
You mean, add unnecessary elements to a touchscreen device? Like Apple's advisor recommended "Make it not flat, or not rectangular, or not clutter-free front surface".
This minimal design is where tablets were headed for a long time. Even Samsung's Q1EX tablet was already basically this, with corrections for thickness limited by technology at that time.
Re:who wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"? How many digital photo displays are "screens with a black border around it"? Oh, perhaps you meant "a rectangular screen with a black border around it and a single round button"?
FYI, All older Samsung TVs (I own one) were "rectangular screens with a black border around it with a single round button in the middle". Or you are going to say that as the tablets have a touch screen, any other design without a touch screen won't apply?
Do you also believe that mobile video calling was invented by Apple when they released the "iphone with a video camera in the front"?
Re: (Score:2)
> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
The question is whether the physical design of a tablet such as Apple's deserves to be a "registered design". Apple has claimed to own the design concept of a tablet with a "thin screen with a rounded black border". My point is that that is downright bullshit, there were tablet concept designs that looked just like that, and I believe that the fact that there TVs and photo displays that looked just like that are pertinent.
Try googling for the suggestions they made in the US about how a tablet would have to
Re: (Score:2)
> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
The question is whether the physical design of a tablet such as Apple's deserves to be a "registered design". Apple has claimed to own the design concept of a tablet with a "thin screen with a rounded black border". My point is that that is downright bullshit, there were tablet concept designs that looked just like that, and I believe that the fact that there TVs and photo displays that looked just like that are pertinent.
No, that's a different question. Look at it this way - in a lawsuit over a patent, there are actually two things that have to be shown: (i) that the patent is valid; and (ii) that the patent is infringed. He was talking about number two, you're talking about number one. They're both legitimate discussions, but they're different.
Try googling for the suggestions they made in the US about how a tablet would have to be NOT to infringe their design. The answer was hilarious. IIRC the judge in California told Apple to take a hike.
That was in the German case IIRC, not California. And Samsung incorporated one of those suggestions in the 10.1N, so it's apparently not that hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the statement from Apple with the list "suggestions" for not infringing their design patents was in California [pcworld.com]. The statement makes the argument, further, that elements such as thinness and rounded corners in a portable device are not "functional" and hence patentable.
Apple also tried to ban the 10.1N [pcmag.com], so they clearly thought that was not enough.
Re:who wins? (Score:5, Informative)
Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar. And it is obvious that Apple doesn't like it. Whether Apple has a case legally or not doesn't matter that much; the message sent is "if you try to sell devices that we think are copying our devices then you'll end up in court, and we make it as inconvenient as possible for you". There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't because the _reason_ for suing is not the patents, but the similarity of the product design.
As far as "Other tablets do _not_ look that similar" goes Apple would beg to differ. [theinquirer.net]
Yes apple is anti-competitive in the fact that they will drag you into court over trivial similarities. They took the very common flat slate concept [dailymail.co.uk] and filed a patent on it. One thing they are very good at is using the ideas and concepts of others [memory-alpha.org] and claiming them as their own while convincing the faithful that it was all their idea. Prior art [blogspot.com] be damned. Keep swallowing the talking points of Apple's PR dept. though don't let the facts get in the way.
Germans win (Score:2)
Nope, Apple wins big (Score:2)
As I understand it, Apple earned about $14B last quarter, and only spent about $100 million on lawyer fees.
Forcing the competition out of the market for $100M is a huge bargain. Apple won.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly and in all subjectivity doubt it. Here in Australia where the Galaxy tablet was banned I see iPads every day out in the street, in the bus, etc. I saw only one Galaxy tab in 8 months however.
Re:who wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to benefit from the publicity when the product receiving publicity is, well, banned.
How do the bans work, anyway? Just sale in the country, or is it illegal to buy overseas and ship one in?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, in Germany the injunction was only against Samsung's German subsidiary. So all the shops happily continued selling their stock, people could order tablets online and have them shipped etc. Merely Samsung Germany couldn't import and distribute the devices anymore.
However it certainly would have been possible for Apple to get similar bans against importers and retailers. They just didn't bother to do so. Of course retailers would have been pissed at Apple if they had done that - so maybe they didn'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time someone links to Florian god kills a kitten.
Please spare us.....