Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs
An appeals court in The Netherlands has sided with Samsung and ruled that its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet does not infringe on patented designs owned by Apple.
The Dutch court determined that the valid scope of Apple's asserted design-related right was narrow, which means it was not infringed upon by Samsung, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.
The prior art considered in the case was six different designs, including the HP Compaq TC 1000 and a Knight-Ridder tablet concept first detailed in 1994.
"The two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins," Mueller explained. "There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity up to (for example) 70%. Instead, they need guidance from judges."
The latest ruling is yet another setback for Apple in its attempts to bar sales of the Galaxy Tab family of products. Apple found some initial success and even prompted Samsung to redesign its tablet and create the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to avoid infringement, but many earlier injunctions that had temporarily barred the sales of Galaxy Tab products have since been overturned, allowing Samsung to release its products.
The Dutch court's ruling comes a week before the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court in Germany is set to hear an appeal related to a preliminary injunction granted to Apple. In addition, Germany's Dusseldorf Regional Court is scheduled to decide in early February whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1N infringes on Apple's design patents.
Last week, a German court tossed a lawsuit in which Samsung accused Apple of violated a patent related to 3G/UMTS wireless communications. And earlier in the week, Apple filed a new lawsuit in Germany accusing Samsung's Galaxy S II and nine other smartphones, along with five tablet models, of patent infringement.
The ongoing legal battle between Samsung and Apple got underway last April, when Apple filed the first lawsuit, accusing Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Both companies are now engaged in a worldwide legal battle that has sparked lawsuits in 10 countries across four continents.
Comments
The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.
"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPad?the first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually is?we're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.
These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.
"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPad?the first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually is?we're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.
These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.
This was the appeal to the Netherland's High Court. It's done and over.
This was the appeal to the Netherland's High Court. It's done and over.
But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.
But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.
Yap, I don't like then it is illegal
This wasn't iPad vs. Tab.
But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.
SHOW US exactly how it is "blatantly illegal" please. Better yet, send that information to their appeals court. Oh, their appeals court ended it. It IS legal. It is over. Move on.
I do use an iPhone and a Mac Mini (not to mention using Apple computers since my first Apple IIc), but I am really getting tire of Apple's "sue them all' mentality. Does anyone even know what patents are actually being sued over? Seems to be a big waste of time, energy, and money that could be better used in the creation of new hardware and software. I guess that would only be true if all the blood-sucking lawyers were retrained in a hardware/software design career. It shames me to admit that I have family that are lawyers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-573...nd-injunction/
But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.
Denial much? The fork is stuck, this case is over.
It shames me to admit that I have family that are lawyers.
I can imagine they are just as shamed to have a Fandroid in the family.
Why did Samsung go back and redesign the Tab to get around the Injunction in Germany then?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-573...nd-injunction/
They didn't want to wait to find out if the initial "emergency injunction" was going to be upheld in the final ruling, and needed to get sales underway. The final judgement is due within a couple of weeks IIRC. Personally I think the court will find that Apple should never had received the preliminary injunction to begin with and will be ordered to pay damages to Samsung. That's just my personal view and I'm no lawyer.
SHOW US exactly how it is "blatantly illegal" please. Better yet, send that information to their appeals court. Oh, their appeals court ended it. It IS legal. It is over. Move on.
Denial much? The fork is stuck, this case is over.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
Irrelevant only for you, much denial?
I can imagine they are just as shamed to have a Fandroid in the family.
What part of the English language do you not understand?
1. Have owned Apple computers since my first Apple IIc (my first was an Atari 800).
2. Currently own an iPhone 4 and Mac Mini.
3 (Wasn't in my original post, but for clarification) I don't own an Android phone. I tried one and returned it. Same with a Samsung Focus running Windows Phone OS - returned it.
So, how exactly am I a "Fandroid"? Because I don't think that everything Apple does is 100% rosy? Get a life.
Using your argument: I like steaks, but have problems with system where beef is raised and slaughtered in the U.S., so I must therefore be a vegan? Wow, just ... wow.
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.
But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.
In the context of this case, "illegal" means what the court deems it to mean. This is not an entirely objective process. If it were, we'd have flowcharts instead of judges.
No surprise - Apple's thermonuclar strategy against Android will at best result in expensive legal stalemates. It's time for Cook to put a fork it and pursue a pragmatic course of action and sign patent agreements ala Microsoft and LG.
Agreed. Apple's products need to stand or fall on their own merit (and I think they will). The thing that will take down Apple is not Android, etc., but instead will be some future internal decisions. That is what almost killed Apple the first time around. Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.
Sigh...it is NOT about copying....How difficult is it to understand this? It is an argument over patents and their use...
Just kidding.