German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in Europe in Apple suit - Page 4

It's a standard term in the computer industry, even if you, surprisingly, haven't heard of it.

This isn't the best article, but it is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel

You don't seem to know what a patent troll is either. Look that one up yourself.

Follow the case, because, actually, they didn't. It appears to be an entity specifically formed for the purpose of these lawsuits.

That's a really silly post. Can you reply more responsibly?

I got it, but my response is the same. I see this stuff all the time about Apple.

Sure, but at one time, there were more computers connected by Apple talk than all other computers put together.

It was great back on those days. A really simple network. It worked pretty well. Must faster than serial. Ethernet killed it.

I LIKED Northstar.

Or a long low hill.

As I pointed out though, this isn't a British site, but an American one. You know the old expression; When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

While I'll admit that some Americans are willing to engage it that humor, generally, we don't find it humorous, even if it happens here. There are a number of sites that would have just removed all posts relating to it. I'm just asking, respectfully, that we don't pursue it.

Damn, I knew we should spoken softer!

Just think, all that hassle has been replaced by a < $100 router and a < $10 chip in each device.


As to the "Trade Dress"....

Judge to Samsung: If you copy the look and feel, packaging, etc. -- you may get sued...


Is like the TV commercial that says: "Users of Cialis may experience delayed back pain...


The answer: Yeah... Your point is?

We've been through this again and again.



It's entirely possible to produce a design that doesn't infringe. This one from Sony is definitely not infringing.

I did too! We sold quite a few -- great Floppy drives , Walnut case, good price and some great Word Processors -- My fav WP app was MoonShadow. It was written by a local by the name of Jim Merritt.

That still looks similar.

Not in the matters specified in the community design. You are looking at the wrong things, you are looking at the big screen that dominates the design, but that's functional - what matters here is everything else. The shape of the top corners is radically different, in fact one can argue that there are no top corners at all as the front surface is bent round to form part of the back smoothly. The back is radically asymmetric. It doesn't infringe, it doesn't even come close.

Still looks similar.

I'm good thanks so maybe you should look it up yourself...

Use enough commas? lol You have no idea what I have read about this case.

All he had to do was disprove the so called "facts" about the 30-40% return rate, of which he accomplished to be false and libel generated by Apple fanboys.

BS. That is still similar.

Something I'm surprised no one has mentioned: this is escalating the patent wars to a whole new level so could we to see one of Apple's competitors doing the same to Apple?

Apple is fighting plenty of patent battles with other companies. For example, Motorola presumably could ask the German court to ban iPhone sales in Europe as part of their suit over 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design patents.

But that's not the standard of proof for infringement, I was wondering when you'd show up though, you managed to go 140 posts in a samsung thread without doing so. Is that a record?

Antenna design maybe, but not the others. When a patent is required to be licensed under FRAND terms injunctive relief makes no legal sense.

The Canyon was a mountain when I was born...

And you are correct, goldstar and slamstung were among the worst products on the shelves.

For insiders, you all should do some research about how this legal system works.

This is called an ex parte request, the counterparty doesn't hears about it untill it is "active", so now it is active.
This request happens when a certain party wants to get something done quickly.

What does this mean, it means that Samsung gets an import restriction (except Holland actually for some reasons) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v.

This is a quick regulation without research and Samsung gets a fine when they don't listen (= import it in the EU) 250.000.000

But, if Apple was wrong they have to pay the damage back to Samsung.

For all of them who say that Apple is "original" and "innovative" and "creative".

Apple was sued by Creative for the UI of the iPod and lost.
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/1152
Apple was sued by Nokia and lost.
http://www.tipb.com/2011/06/14/nokia...ed-apple-pays/

Also, LG Prada won prizes with their design of smarthpone, later came Apple with the iPhone that looked a lot like it.

But after all, it's just a screen with a cover on it.

I think it's ridiculous to have a patent with a screen and a cover surrounding it, nothing is special about it.
In my opinion, a tablet looks like a small tv with another dimension-size, that's it.
(or the netbook without a keyboard).

I hope Samsung wins, so i can order my 2nd Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v (for my brother) and use DLNA and Bluetooth and HDVideo playback + recording without any problems .

And i just want to buy my tablet without being restricted, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v is currently the best on the market, the iPad 2 comes after.
Just like the Samsung Galaxy S2 is owning the iPhone.

Go Samsung

Well this is clearly false. There was always more computers than there were Macs and not all Macs were networked anyway. Even from the perspective of all networked computers vs all localtalked computers this is false. The window where LocalTalk held advantages as a physical connector was fairly small...until about the time we could widely start using 10BaseT twisted pair vs coax for ethernet in the late 80s.

You might be able to argue there were more AppleTalk compatible devices than all other computers only because MS baked AppleTalk into WinNT. But you aren't because you're clearly talking about the physical implementation because you claim that ethernet killed appletalk...which it didn't. It killed localtalk. You can run Appletalk over ethernet (EtherTalk), token ring, etc. In any case, AppleTalk was clearly not used as a primary protocol on WinNT machines.

And no, don't claim some "I know this because I was doing this for 40 years" BS because I've been doing computer networks since before '84 (When AppleTalk came out) and built my fair share of LANs using Token Ring, AppleTalk, FDDI, Ethernet (fat, thin, optical and twisted pait) and string, bubblegum, duct tape and desperate wishes.

Based on your posts, I'd say people have a very good idea which is you've understood very little about the case or what a patent troll actually is.

Obviously you are not qualified to have an intelligent discussion on design matters. If squared corners and rounded corners look the same to you, design is over your head and you had best sit this one out.

This is good news for Apple, but lets not get ahead of what's happened so far. Samsung hasn't been found in violation of a patent yet, it's just had a block put on the sale of the device.

LG managed to get a similar block on PS3's at the start of the year, which was then overturned and LG stuck with the bill for legal fees.

Getting the product's banned from sale is just the first step. They still have to win the patent case, if they loose then they are potentially liable for a lot of money to samsung for lost earnings and storage of all the devices.

deleted

Na...

....

A MODERATOR... on an Apple Rumor Website... being paid by APPLE... to agree with Apple.

How much more uninformed could that idea BE?! It's incorrect on at least five different levels.


The sentence is absolutely grammatically correct if taken as a direct translation of spoken word. However, it's a poorly constructed written sentence. You shouldn't write as you speak unless you already speak as you write.


Oh, I have at least ONE idea.

deleted

deleted

Okay, wait a minute.

First, you need to change your quote. Melgross didn't say that, I did.

Second, I think you're trying to agree with me by pretending that I'm taking your side. I'm not.

Third, good job at making your argument confusing to the point of futility.

While I think you're absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the tech-crunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced I think you're venturing slightly onto the rough with this argument. The story claimed that 40% return rates were for some Android models, and then later on for 'many' Android models - but never claimed it as an industry wide average, or that it applied to most handsets.

Given the sheer number of handsets, it's not economically impossible that many models have high return rates - so long as those aren't the biggest selling models. I would guess that we're talking about around 100 android models on the market in the US at any one time, so 'many' might still represent a relatively small percentage of models - let alone sales.

The Motorola patents were just an example (they were mentioned in a recent story). My point is there are a lot of a patents out there and Apple is regularly targeted in patent suites. We can bet that patent lawyers everywhere saw this and are going to try the same thing in the future.

They can and already do, but on a regular patent a German ruling would only apply in Germany, not across the entire community. This ruling has EU wide effect precisely because it's a community design and not a utility patent.

deleted

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/10/a...motorola-over/

Looks like Motorola could be next

It's still unsubstantiated rumor. melgross' assertion was that Samsung's top Android models are seeing 30-40% return rates and 100% of tablets in Stapes (which is clearly wrong because I read the original article. "Lots" <> 100%).

These claims are idiotic or Samsung telecom wouldn't be posting record profits but massive losses.

"Operating profit from its telecoms division more than doubled to 1.67 trillion won from 630 billion won a year ago, helped by strong sales of a new version of its flagship smartphone Galaxy S."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S00320110729

link source: droideggs

The TechCruch article doesn't even say that Samsung's android phones are seeing 30% returns but some unnamed android handsets. MacRulez is correct...this is a bogus meme that doesn't die, mutates and folks suddenly spout of nonsense that "Samsung's top models" are seeing 30% return rates.

Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.

Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.

This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.