I know many here is hating on this "minimalistic design" wording in the ruling, but I feel that it's the whole reason the iPhone/iPad have been so dominating. Look, every tablet that was marketed before the iPad was complex, some had swiveling screens to convert from laptop to tablet, they all used styluses, most had tons of buttons, some had handles, etc.
I think what's more interesting about the "prior art" from Kubrick and even star trek is these movies/shows were intending to make futuristic devices that seemed desirable but were straight forward. Somehow, in the months leading up to the release of the iPad, every competitor stood around, some even openly admitted they were purposefully delaying production because everyone wanted to see what apple would bring to the table.
When apple released it, many if not most people in the tech-sphere bemoaned that it was too simple, just an oversized iPod touch with comically sized bezels. People said it would fail because it was too simple, and some joked that it wasn't actually really bigger than an iPhone cuz it was all bezel.
Now, a couple years later, everyone is trying to say that this simple design is obvious and that everyone had obviously thought of it before. Well, that may be true, we can't read minds in the past, but apple was the only one with the balls to release such a simple device, I think it's fair to say they deserve to reap the benefits of their bold move.
Well said. Many things are "obvious" in retrospect. Especially elegant things, like Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, although simple, no-one thought of that before Einstein published it. He rightly receives credit for the innovation. And so on.
This doesn't mean Apple deserves a monopoly on touchpads forever. But Samsung has made a clone product. Like the Chinese SUV that is molded to the BMW X5 body. It's not an original product; it is essentially pirated intellectual property.
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
Yet this does not in any way help a Tab look like an iPad.
And again, this is not relevant to this ruling, which didn't take into account anything like this.
I will fully agree with anybody who suggests that the Galaxy S/SII line with Touchwiz, is a blatant rip-off from the iPhone 3G/3GS line up. But a lot of the complaints about a Tab looking like an iPad are simply based on the fact that they are both rectangles with black bezels. I can't agree that this in any way makes it look like a copy. And the OS is markedly different. Honeycomb on the Tab is quite different from iOS on the iPad. Anybody who turned the device on should be able to tell the difference, even if they can't tell by the shape and general orientation (one works best vertical and one works best horizontal).
I may defend Android on here, but I do own, and will always buy Apple products too (incidentally the iPad is the only tablet I'd spring for...though I'm waiting for iPad 3 and an upgraded screen....). I like it when they compete on the strength of their offerings. That the only way they were able to hold off the competition is by using a community design registration for a rectangle is just sad.
Imagine Samsung filing for a community design registration for rectangular flat panel televisions and monitors and then getting Apple's monitors banned. I'd say that was pretty stupid and messed up. And so is this ruling to me. When it comes to the Touchwiz and the Galaxy/S/SII line-up though, they should be taken to the cleaners by Apple.
Yet this does not in any way help a Tab look like an iPad.
And again, this is not relevant to this ruling, which didn't take into account anything like this.
I will fully agree with anybody who suggests that the Galaxy S/SII line with Touchwiz, is a blatant rip-off from the iPhone 3G/3GS line up. But a lot of the complaints about a Tab looking like an iPad are simply based on the fact that they are both rectangles with black bezels. I can't agree that this in any way makes it look like a copy. And the OS is markedly different. Honeycomb on the Tab is quite different from iOS on the iPad. Anybody who turned the device on should be able to tell the difference, even if they can't tell by the shape and general orientation (one works best vertical and one works best horizontal).
I may defend Android on here, but I do own, and will always buy Apple products too (incidentally the iPad is the only tablet I'd spring for...though I'm waiting for iPad 3 and an upgraded screen....). I like it when they compete on the strength of their offerings. That the only way they were able to hold off the competition is by using a community design registration for a rectangle is just sad.
Imagine Samsung filing for a community design registration for rectangular flat panel televisions and monitors and then getting Apple's monitors banned. I'd say that was pretty stupid and messed up. And so is this ruling to me. When it comes to the Touchwiz and the Galaxy/S/SII line-up though, they should be taken to the cleaners by Apple.
Nowhere did I personally argue that. A claim was made and I corrected it. Had Samsung had the same type of design as the original but thinner, I'm not sure Apple would have even persued this, but it didn't. Instead, Samsung basically made it look like a 3GS with a lip around the back facing camera.
If Samsung had filed a community design for whatever monitor and Apple copied it as closely as possible, I'd say sue away.
I don't like Samsung's Android products and I do think they deserve to be smacked down. But how is this a "triumph for common sense". In essence the judge is saying nobody but Apple can make a tablet that's a rectangle. Come on. You know that's not common sense.
Had they slapped the injunction on Samsung based on Touchwiz, I would have fully agreed with it. On the Galaxy line of phones, for example, I fully concur with the treatment Samsung is getting. This however, is not a victory for anything but bad legal precedents.
If this stands, why can't a tire company file for circular wheels or a television maker for rectangular display?
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
that's...a duh moment and doesn't show copying...it shows adapting to the market...nothing wrong with that.
They were adapting to one product not the market.
Quote:
I for one don't think it looks like an iPad 2 beyond the minimalistic design. My beef with Samsung is mainly for TouchWiz's blatant rip of iOS for phones (the tablets are decidedly different)
This injunction is BS IMO because it grants a company a monopoly on this:
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
You have to understand that everything Apple does is blatantly obvious, Apple is just overly quick to bring products to market to beat out the competition, which is why the iPhone 4 has been on flagship smartphone for 15 months and it took Apple a mere 20 years to get the iPad out. And just ignore all the comments about how Apple will fail because they aren't doing exactly what the others have done before them because that's all in the past.
I don't like Samsung, but suggesting that making your product thinner after seeing your competitor's product is copying, is ridiculous.
That's what you think.
Quote:
If that's your logic, what do you think of the race that's on in the flat panel television market?
That's totally different situation. You said it yourself "Flat Panel TVs". Are you going to call this "iPad Tablet Race"? Flat panels TV was a new category and technology. The iPad is still a tablet computer. What Apple did is take a different approach to this market.
Quote:
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
I remember when Apple announced the iPad.. it was just big iPod touch/iPhone. A big fail and over priced Apple toy for Apple fanboys with a phone OS. Everyone needs a full desktop OS (preferably Windows) with all the awesome ports and that (control-Alt-Delete) button.
Now, the iPad is just a rectangular tablet like all other tablets. So obvious.
That's totally different situation. You said it yourself "Flat Panel TVs". Are you going to call this "iPad Tablet Race"? Flat panels TV was a new category and technology. The iPad is still a tablet computer. What Apple did is take a different approach to this market.
Seriously?
The iPad is a new category? That's like suggesting that somebody who comes out with new display tech (say LED TVs) would be right to seek out a patent for rectangular displays using said tech. I'm sorry I don't agree with that logic.
There were tablets before the iPad. The only change was the deployment of a consumer focused mobile OS. None of the hardware changes that came with the iPad were unforeseen (just not possible before due to cost). And a lot of commercial grade (non-consumer) stuff was already moving in that direction. Not to say the iPad wasn't revolutionary to consumers. But from a purely technological point of view, I'd suggest it was evolutionary. I don't even consider it to be as ground-breaking as the iPod clickwheel.
People forget that before the iPad first came out, there were lots of folks suggesting that Apple should make a tablet that was a big iPod Touch. And it really wasn't that much of a surprise when they did. Indeed, that's exactly why detractors mocked it, "It's just a giant iTouch." So then to suggest that it's not an obvious leap is quite a stretch.
Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?
I don't want to waste my time discussing with you if you think that Apple should be the sole supplier to humanity of any computer device with a touchscreen that's rectangular.
I'm going to ask you a straight-up question: Do you think ANY tablet that's rectangular and has rounded corners is a copy of an iPad? Yes or no.
If Samsung had filed a community design for whatever monitor and Apple copied it as closely as possible, I'd say sue away.
...and you should see the reaction on here when Apple does get sued by those who are allegedly trying to protect their intellectual property too.
Sooner or later, Apple is going to get hit with a "gotcha" lawsuit just like this one. I trust, everybody on AI will then agree that it's perfectly okay for the other party to engage in such tactics.
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
Where your whole argument falls apart is AMOLED, Apple doesn't use it, Samsung does.
It's funny how years of R&D (iPhone and iPad) translates to "obvious" design. Yeah, it's "obvious" after Apple spent the time and money. What did smartphones and tablets look like before Apple came and basically reinvented them? You can't say a rectangle is obvious design after Apple sells millions of iPads and the competition scraps their designs and copies the iPad. All this talk about giving credit to the component manufacturers is stupid. You don't give credit to the component makers, you give credit to the person/company that puts it all together and creates something out of those components. If it was so obvious Samsung should have brought their tablet to market first. Fact is, these companies are clueless and just want to continue copying Apple instead of spending time and money trying to come up with their own designs.
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
And that's fine. That's something I can agree with. Even as an Android user, I've never liked Samsung specifically because of their copying. It makes no sense to me why anybody would want a copycat look-alike product. Why get something that looks like an iPhone when you could just get the iPhone?
All that said, a ruling that basically says no other OEM is allowed to make and sell a tablet in Germany that's a rectangle is pretty bogus. Just imagine if Henry Ford took had gotten a design patent on motorized vehicles with four wheels. This is pretty damn close that kind of logic.
It's funny how years of R&D (iPhone and iPad) translates to "obvious" design.
The deployment of the OS, the UI, etc. wasn't obvious. But I'd say that the shape (a rectangle) was pretty obvious. There were already tablets before that were rectangles. How else would you make a tablet? If anything, this patent should be disqualified on prior art.
If this lawsuit was won on any other grounds, I'll back Apple. But on such a broad patent?
I'm talking about a minimalistic tablet...hell minimalism period is the new design paradigm for this generation...bells and whistles do not fly for the most part. No company should monopolize that.
Also Apple pretty much defined the consumer tablet market...competition always follows.
Quote:
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
Yea I have no problem with Samsung being sued...they need a wake up call...like I said in another post, there a lot of ways to make a 4x4 grid look different than another 4x4 grid (technically Samsung did this, as only the app drawer resembles iOS's app launcher interface) but even stock Android looks significantly different than iOS (despite what naysayers think), MotoInterfaceFormerlyKnownAsBlur as well.
The problem is, however, with a design patent so vague, so minimal...who CAN'T be sued? HTC Flyer? Hell, I'm sure even Sony's wedge tablet can be sued somehow.
Comments
You over-simplify things to suit your simplistic argument. Is Apple suing all tablet manufacturers over this same issue? No.
it's quite common for a company to only sue one of many companies possibly infringing on a patent.
Looks like the fairy God-moderators have granted your wish, because justin24 is banned how.
thank God-moderators.
I know many here is hating on this "minimalistic design" wording in the ruling, but I feel that it's the whole reason the iPhone/iPad have been so dominating. Look, every tablet that was marketed before the iPad was complex, some had swiveling screens to convert from laptop to tablet, they all used styluses, most had tons of buttons, some had handles, etc.
I think what's more interesting about the "prior art" from Kubrick and even star trek is these movies/shows were intending to make futuristic devices that seemed desirable but were straight forward. Somehow, in the months leading up to the release of the iPad, every competitor stood around, some even openly admitted they were purposefully delaying production because everyone wanted to see what apple would bring to the table.
When apple released it, many if not most people in the tech-sphere bemoaned that it was too simple, just an oversized iPod touch with comically sized bezels. People said it would fail because it was too simple, and some joked that it wasn't actually really bigger than an iPhone cuz it was all bezel.
Now, a couple years later, everyone is trying to say that this simple design is obvious and that everyone had obviously thought of it before. Well, that may be true, we can't read minds in the past, but apple was the only one with the balls to release such a simple device, I think it's fair to say they deserve to reap the benefits of their bold move.
Well said. Many things are "obvious" in retrospect. Especially elegant things, like Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, although simple, no-one thought of that before Einstein published it. He rightly receives credit for the innovation. And so on.
This doesn't mean Apple deserves a monopoly on touchpads forever. But Samsung has made a clone product. Like the Chinese SUV that is molded to the BMW X5 body. It's not an original product; it is essentially pirated intellectual property.
Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.
I'd actually like to hear you explain this from your perspective.
What the hell... I'm bored...
I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of design changes besides thinness. One in particular that I remember is that the back of the Tab was texturized and the current is smooth like the 3GS.
Yet this does not in any way help a Tab look like an iPad.
And again, this is not relevant to this ruling, which didn't take into account anything like this.
I will fully agree with anybody who suggests that the Galaxy S/SII line with Touchwiz, is a blatant rip-off from the iPhone 3G/3GS line up. But a lot of the complaints about a Tab looking like an iPad are simply based on the fact that they are both rectangles with black bezels. I can't agree that this in any way makes it look like a copy. And the OS is markedly different. Honeycomb on the Tab is quite different from iOS on the iPad. Anybody who turned the device on should be able to tell the difference, even if they can't tell by the shape and general orientation (one works best vertical and one works best horizontal).
I may defend Android on here, but I do own, and will always buy Apple products too (incidentally the iPad is the only tablet I'd spring for...though I'm waiting for iPad 3 and an upgraded screen....). I like it when they compete on the strength of their offerings. That the only way they were able to hold off the competition is by using a community design registration for a rectangle is just sad.
Imagine Samsung filing for a community design registration for rectangular flat panel televisions and monitors and then getting Apple's monitors banned. I'd say that was pretty stupid and messed up. And so is this ruling to me. When it comes to the Touchwiz and the Galaxy/S/SII line-up though, they should be taken to the cleaners by Apple.
Yet this does not in any way help a Tab look like an iPad.
And again, this is not relevant to this ruling, which didn't take into account anything like this.
I will fully agree with anybody who suggests that the Galaxy S/SII line with Touchwiz, is a blatant rip-off from the iPhone 3G/3GS line up. But a lot of the complaints about a Tab looking like an iPad are simply based on the fact that they are both rectangles with black bezels. I can't agree that this in any way makes it look like a copy. And the OS is markedly different. Honeycomb on the Tab is quite different from iOS on the iPad. Anybody who turned the device on should be able to tell the difference, even if they can't tell by the shape and general orientation (one works best vertical and one works best horizontal).
I may defend Android on here, but I do own, and will always buy Apple products too (incidentally the iPad is the only tablet I'd spring for...though I'm waiting for iPad 3 and an upgraded screen....). I like it when they compete on the strength of their offerings. That the only way they were able to hold off the competition is by using a community design registration for a rectangle is just sad.
Imagine Samsung filing for a community design registration for rectangular flat panel televisions and monitors and then getting Apple's monitors banned. I'd say that was pretty stupid and messed up. And so is this ruling to me. When it comes to the Touchwiz and the Galaxy/S/SII line-up though, they should be taken to the cleaners by Apple.
Nowhere did I personally argue that. A claim was made and I corrected it. Had Samsung had the same type of design as the original but thinner, I'm not sure Apple would have even persued this, but it didn't. Instead, Samsung basically made it look like a 3GS with a lip around the back facing camera.
If Samsung had filed a community design for whatever monitor and Apple copied it as closely as possible, I'd say sue away.
I don't like Samsung's Android products and I do think they deserve to be smacked down. But how is this a "triumph for common sense". In essence the judge is saying nobody but Apple can make a tablet that's a rectangle. Come on. You know that's not common sense.
Had they slapped the injunction on Samsung based on Touchwiz, I would have fully agreed with it. On the Galaxy line of phones, for example, I fully concur with the treatment Samsung is getting. This however, is not a victory for anything but bad legal precedents.
If this stands, why can't a tire company file for circular wheels or a television maker for rectangular display?
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
that's...a duh moment and doesn't show copying...it shows adapting to the market...nothing wrong with that.
They were adapting to one product not the market.
I for one don't think it looks like an iPad 2 beyond the minimalistic design. My beef with Samsung is mainly for TouchWiz's blatant rip of iOS for phones (the tablets are decidedly different)
This injunction is BS IMO because it grants a company a monopoly on this:
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
You have to understand that everything Apple does is blatantly obvious, Apple is just overly quick to bring products to market to beat out the competition, which is why the iPhone 4 has been on flagship smartphone for 15 months and it took Apple a mere 20 years to get the iPad out. And just ignore all the comments about how Apple will fail because they aren't doing exactly what the others have done before them because that's all in the past.
I don't like Samsung, but suggesting that making your product thinner after seeing your competitor's product is copying, is ridiculous.
That's what you think.
If that's your logic, what do you think of the race that's on in the flat panel television market?
That's totally different situation. You said it yourself "Flat Panel TVs". Are you going to call this "iPad Tablet Race"? Flat panels TV was a new category and technology. The iPad is still a tablet computer. What Apple did is take a different approach to this market.
It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.
It wasn't only the thickness. They've made some HW changes as well. Did you really think they just magically made it thinner?!
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
I remember when Apple announced the iPad.. it was just big iPod touch/iPhone. A big fail and over priced Apple toy for Apple fanboys with a phone OS. Everyone needs a full desktop OS (preferably Windows) with all the awesome ports and that (control-Alt-Delete) button.
Now, the iPad is just a rectangular tablet like all other tablets. So obvious.
No wonder this ruling.
Just look at Samsung's pre iPad designs and look how pads can have other designs, why is Apple's the only one to have!
If that's the argument, where was the lawsuit against HP. If anything looks like an iPad, it's the Touchpad.
In any event, this lawsuit is based on a shape. It's not even based on design specifics.
That's totally different situation. You said it yourself "Flat Panel TVs". Are you going to call this "iPad Tablet Race"? Flat panels TV was a new category and technology. The iPad is still a tablet computer. What Apple did is take a different approach to this market.
Seriously?
The iPad is a new category? That's like suggesting that somebody who comes out with new display tech (say LED TVs) would be right to seek out a patent for rectangular displays using said tech. I'm sorry I don't agree with that logic.
There were tablets before the iPad. The only change was the deployment of a consumer focused mobile OS. None of the hardware changes that came with the iPad were unforeseen (just not possible before due to cost). And a lot of commercial grade (non-consumer) stuff was already moving in that direction. Not to say the iPad wasn't revolutionary to consumers. But from a purely technological point of view, I'd suggest it was evolutionary. I don't even consider it to be as ground-breaking as the iPod clickwheel.
People forget that before the iPad first came out, there were lots of folks suggesting that Apple should make a tablet that was a big iPod Touch. And it really wasn't that much of a surprise when they did. Indeed, that's exactly why detractors mocked it, "It's just a giant iTouch." So then to suggest that it's not an obvious leap is quite a stretch.
It wasn't only the thickness. They've made some HW changes as well. Did you really think they just magically made it thinner?!
Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?
I don't want to waste my time discussing with you if you think that Apple should be the sole supplier to humanity of any computer device with a touchscreen that's rectangular.
I'm going to ask you a straight-up question: Do you think ANY tablet that's rectangular and has rounded corners is a copy of an iPad? Yes or no.
If Samsung had filed a community design for whatever monitor and Apple copied it as closely as possible, I'd say sue away.
...and you should see the reaction on here when Apple does get sued by those who are allegedly trying to protect their intellectual property too.
Sooner or later, Apple is going to get hit with a "gotcha" lawsuit just like this one. I trust, everybody on AI will then agree that it's perfectly okay for the other party to engage in such tactics.
I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.
From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.
And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.
Where your whole argument falls apart is AMOLED, Apple doesn't use it, Samsung does.
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
And that's fine. That's something I can agree with. Even as an Android user, I've never liked Samsung specifically because of their copying. It makes no sense to me why anybody would want a copycat look-alike product. Why get something that looks like an iPhone when you could just get the iPhone?
All that said, a ruling that basically says no other OEM is allowed to make and sell a tablet in Germany that's a rectangle is pretty bogus. Just imagine if Henry Ford took had gotten a design patent on motorized vehicles with four wheels. This is pretty damn close that kind of logic.
It's funny how years of R&D (iPhone and iPad) translates to "obvious" design.
The deployment of the OS, the UI, etc. wasn't obvious. But I'd say that the shape (a rectangle) was pretty obvious. There were already tablets before that were rectangles. How else would you make a tablet? If anything, this patent should be disqualified on prior art.
If this lawsuit was won on any other grounds, I'll back Apple. But on such a broad patent?
They were adapting to one product not the market.
I'm talking about a minimalistic tablet...hell minimalism period is the new design paradigm for this generation...bells and whistles do not fly for the most part. No company should monopolize that.
Also Apple pretty much defined the consumer tablet market...competition always follows.
The injunction might be a BS but Apple will continue bring legal actions against Samsung using other patent because let's face it.. their products are ripoffs of Apple designs.
Yea I have no problem with Samsung being sued...they need a wake up call...like I said in another post, there a lot of ways to make a 4x4 grid look different than another 4x4 grid (technically Samsung did this, as only the app drawer resembles iOS's app launcher interface) but even stock Android looks significantly different than iOS (despite what naysayers think), MotoInterfaceFormerlyKnownAsBlur as well.
The problem is, however, with a design patent so vague, so minimal...who CAN'T be sued? HTC Flyer? Hell, I'm sure even Sony's wedge tablet can be sued somehow.