or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany - Page 4

post #121 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamme73 View Post

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...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #122 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

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.
post #123 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #124 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #125 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

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.
post #126 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #127 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.

It wasn't only the thickness. They've made some HW changes as well. Did you really think they just magically made it thinner?!
post #128 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

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.
post #129 of 246
Germany creates things, like Apple does.
No wonder this ruling.
post #130 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

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.
post #131 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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.
post #132 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

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.
post #133 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #134 of 246
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.
post #135 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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.
post #136 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

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?
post #137 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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.

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.
post #138 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?

The original Galaxy Tab 10.1v has an eight megapixel camera, how is dropping it to three megapixels "upping the specs"?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #139 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.

Just imagine if BMW got a design patent on the distinctive grille pattern of their cars...

...oh hang on, they do.

There goes that argument.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #140 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The original Galaxy Tab 10.1v has an eight megapixel camera, how is dropping it to three megapixels "upping the specs"?

My mistake. You're right. They dropped the specs on the camera (which they claim was due to space reduction). Again though, how does this make it more like the iPad? If a laptop comes with the same hard drive size as my MBP, does that mean it's automatically a rip-off of what's in my backpack? If anything lowering their specs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

And again, how does any of this have to do with this ruling which concerns a basic shape. The judge never said that the Tab was similiar to the iPad because of the specs, because of the UI, because of the look and feel. He said it infringed because it was a rectangle. Heck, they banned the 7in. tablet on that basis too. And I'm hard-pressed to see how something the size of a Kindle could be mistaken in any way for an iPad.
post #141 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Just imagine if BMW got a design patent on the distinctive grille pattern of their cars...

...oh hang on, they do.

There goes that argument.

Apple's patent is broader than that. It's more akin to the Henry Ford example.

If Apple had a patent on the shape of the iPad with a circular home button at the bottom that would be something close to your example. And something I'd support by the way.
post #142 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.

You are not reading my post. I clearly said "the iPad is a tablet computer". Meaning it is not a market by itself and therefore not a category. What you've just wrote agrees with what you quoted me saying.

Quote:
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.

The iPad is about software as much as hardware.

Quote:
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.

I believe everyone wanted a Mac OS tablet with iPhone like touch. I remember everyone was disappointed because it wasn't a Mac and it was "big iPod touch" instead.

Quote:
Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?

They actually downgraded the camera from 8MP. Probably to make it thinner

Quote:
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.

I never said that everyone with a rectangular form factor and touch screen is a copy of the iPad. My point was that Samsung copies their competitors, in this case the iPad, and they deserve everything they are getting as a result. Even if it was on something weak like that community design. Like I said before, Apple have more patents to throw at Samsung. If this injunction get thrown out in appeal, which most likely will be, they will likely be found infringing on something else.

Apple only used that community design against Samsung. They don't seem to think it applies for their other lawsuits against Motorola and HTC. There is no reason to believe the Apple want to have a monopoly on rectangular tablets with touch screen.
post #143 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I never said that everyone with a rectangular form factor and touch screen is a copy of the iPad. My point was that Samsung copies their competitors, in this case the iPad, and they deserve everything they are getting as a result. Even if it was on something weak like that community design. Like I said before, Apple have more patents to throw at Samsung. If this injunction get thrown out in appeal, which most likely will be, they will likely be found infringing on something else.

Fair enough. And I do agree with Samsung getting the treatment that it is. I've said that before.

However, rulings like this are dangerous. They set really bad precedents (and across other fields too). Whatever your feelings on Samsung, you have to concur with that. What if the situation were reversed and Samsung had the patent for a rectangle and they blocked imports of the iPad into Germany? Would that have any thing to do with innovation at all? And would you agree with it then or would you think it was pretty stupid? Do you really believe that Apple should be given the right to be the SOLE supplier to Germany of ANY rectangular tablet computers of ANY SIZE till 2030? (Registered Community Designs are valid for 25 years). That's what the ruling says. You agree with that?

This is not about liking or disliking Samsung products (I for one will never buy a Samsung phone). To me this about a stupid application of an overly broad patent. If Apple has other patents (and they do), they should assert them. Winning on a patent like this.....I dunno.
post #144 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

...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 have read some of those threads and while others may grumble, I don't. If there is prior art or the patent is invalidated, great. If not, too bad so sad pay the dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

My mistake. You're right. They dropped the specs on the camera (which they claim was due to space reduction). Again though, how does this make it more like the iPad? If a laptop comes with the same hard drive size as my MBP, does that mean it's automatically a rip-off of what's in my backpack? If anything lowering their specs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

And again, how does any of this have to do with this ruling which concerns a basic shape. The judge never said that the Tab was similiar to the iPad because of the specs, because of the UI, because of the look and feel. He said it infringed because it was a rectangle. Heck, they banned the 7in. tablet on that basis too. And I'm hard-pressed to see how something the size of a Kindle could be mistaken in any way for an iPad.

You are taking one component (camera) out of the whole. Samsung didn't just use a lower spec camera to make it thinner. It changed the back significantly to look more like an Apple product. As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #145 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

. . . As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.

An argument which does nothing to explain why the Xoom, which has no resemblance to an iPad, is also being accused of the same design infringement of the rectangular drawings submitted and accepted. Apple didn't file all those undetailed drawings for EU design patents, at minimum 1000 (since that's the limit on records that can be listed with a search) for products they've never offered to just go unused. They're filed as insurance against any potential competitor. Take the time to look thru the EU design patents they've filed, and the numerous variations covering just about every possible look that could be imagined and the goal will be eminently clear.

IMHO, if you design an iPod competitor, a tablet to compete with Apple's iPad, or even any yet to be thought of portable computing device, you should hope it doesn't become a high profile success., putting you on Apple's radar. They've probably already filed a Community Design patent on the shape no matter what it is.

EDIT: I'm guessing it may not be clear that the German court is not ruling that the Galaxy Tab resembles the iPad specifically. The ruling that Samsung infringes is based on a comparison to the drawing that Apple holds rights to, that by chance resembles it's iPad product in some ways.

As the Court made clear: "The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy Tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right," Brueckner-Hoffman said. "Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

An argument which does nothing to explain why the Xoom, which has no resemblance to an iPad, is also being accused of the same design infringement on the rectangular drawings submitted and accepted. Apple didn't file all those undetailed drawings for design patents, at minimum 1000 (since that's the limit on records that can be listed with a search) for products they've never offered to just to go unused. They're filed as insurance against any potential competitor. Take the time to look thru the EU design patents they've filed, and the numerous variations covering just about every possible look that could be imagined and the goal will be eminently clear.

IMHO, if you design an iPod competitor, a tablet to compete with Apple's iPad, or even any yet to be thought of portable computing device, you should hope it doesn't become a high profile success., putting you on Apple's radar. They've probably already filed a Community Design patent on the shape no matter what it is.

The only thing I have read regarding the Xoom having the same suit against it was on FOSSPatents and it was mentioned in the papers of the Samsung case. Do you know if Apple has actually filed the case yet? If not, I wonder if that plan would change since Google will own Motorola outright. Either way, Apple has a right to go after them too since Motorola filed a US case against Apple first.

If Apple goes after Asus (who hasn't filed anything against Apple AFAIK) for its Transformer, then I will get all Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling!"
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #147 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:

http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/p...ail&returnurl=

I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?

I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #148 of 246
Apparently the judge issued this ruling based on the drawings in the design patent and not the actual device.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-10-1-ban.html

Quote:
The court didn’t compare the Galaxy tablet with the actual iPad and instead focused on a design Apple filed with the European Union intellectual property agency in Alicante, Spain, Brueckner-Hofmann said.

Samsung’s tablet didn’t keep enough distance from the Apple design, the judge said. While the back of the Galaxy is different from Apple’s registered design, the important feature is the front, which is nearly identical, she said.
The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right,” she said. “Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology.”

post #149 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

you just compared an iPad to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That just happened. Think on that.

Yah, pretty cool eh?
post #150 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides. ...

You're exaggerating I think. Touch screen have been around almost as long as computers and all through the 1990's all mobile devices had them (not capitative touch granted). The multi-touch technology that Apple bought from FingerWorks to use on the iPhone and later iPad was also around for years and not selling well. Anyone could have put these things together to make the multi-touch mobile devices we see today, but it took the vision of someone to see it.

Once it's done, it's obvious, but anyone could have done it.

For that matter, the very *day* the iPhone came out, there were a few articles by some of the smarter folks that said how cool this technology would be in a larger form factor. Anyone with vision could have seen the iPad as a possibility right then, but no one actually did anything about it. Apple continued working on it for a couple of years more and eventually released the iPad which supposedly caught everyone flatfooted. Anyone with vision though could have seen it coming years before.
post #151 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

If Apple goes after Asus (who hasn't filed anything against Apple AFAIK) for its Transformer, then I will get all Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling!"

Ditto.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #152 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

Hahahahaha!!!! Solipsism FTW! You usually make excellent points and I agree with you nearly all of the time, but this gives you a special place in my heart.

In dee FACE Samsung, in dee FACE! Right? Right!
post #153 of 246
Quote:
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?

I think this post unwittingly shows why trade dress litigation and this case in particular gets so divisive. Jetz can't see why someone would buy a look-alike iPhone (which is valid and makes sense to me at least), however, I can also see why someone would. Why? Because a person may like a particular case design, s/he may not want that particular OS. That's all well and good, but we can't always get what we want. Apple invests quite a bit on its industrial design and has value. Just because some consumers like Apple's design but not its software doesn't give other companies the right to use Apple's hard work to make a buck.

Do I like the community design completely? Nope. But with all this talk about "What if the shoe was on the other foot?", I'm now questioning: Well why didn't these other companies think to file any design patents themselves? My opinion is that these companies care very little about design so they don't invest in R&D (design not tech) in any meaningful way leading to nothing to patent (again design not tech). Waiting to see other people's work for the sake of copying just isn't innovation.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #154 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I just looked it up just to make sure and nope. The original (10.1v) was texturized with an indentation on the back and the Samsung logo. The current, re-designed one (10.1) is smooth with 1/2" lip on the top. Completely different design.

I OWN a galaxy tab. (the gray one) there is defiantly a texture on it (it looks a bit like burnished metal) It's not a huge texture, but you can feel it.
post #155 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I think this post unwittingly shows why trade dress litigation and this case in particular gets so divisive. Jetz can't see why someone would buy a look-alike iPhone (which is valid and makes sense to me at least), however, I can also see why someone would. Why? Because a person may like a particular case design, s/he may not want that particular OS. That's all well and good, but we can't always get what we want. Apple invests quite a bit on its industrial design and has value. Just because some consumers like Apple's design but not its software doesn't give other companies the right to use Apple's hard work to make a buck.

Do I like the community design completely? Nope. But with all this talk about "What if the shoe was on the other foot?", I'm now questioning: Well why didn't these other companies think to file any design patents themselves? My opinion is that these companies care very little about design so they don't invest in R&D (design not tech) in any meaningful way leading to nothing to patent (again design not tech). Waiting to see other people's work for the sake of copying just isn't innovation.

A very high number of Apple's Design Patents are granted on simple line drawings for designs they never offered and probably never will. There's not a lot of realistic options that Apple hasn't covered.

I did a bit of research earlier. I figured Samsung might be able to dump the bezel altogether and avoid Apple's design. Nope Apple has one for that, #000965124-0015. Ok, so how about a raised bezel. No again, Apple's already patented it, #000965124-0009. Hmmm. . . go for a wedge-shaped slate with a tiny bezel. No again. Apple Design Patent 000965124-0010. Well there's gotta be one they didn't cover, right. How about a slightly off-center screen closer to the top with a wider bezel at the bottom for controls? Nope. Apple Design Patent 001120117-0019. Darn it, just use no bezel at all, in fact no buttons at all either except for a single power button on the front, or maybe add three buttons to the side, keeping the screen area uncluttered. No and no, #001222905-0003 and 001222905-0007.

That's the part of the problem that no one here is understanding. Apple doesn't have to actually build the design to get a Design Patent for it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #156 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

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.

Tablet concept 1994: http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

Making the device a minimalistic rectangle IS obvious. The problem is that previous to the ipad, the only real touchscreens of that size were the resistive screens. These required a raised bezel, and often secondary buttons as the screen was not sensitive enough to quickly register common tasks.

This is what they looked like previous to the ipad:

Full Rez: http://i53.tinypic.com/2mfyedw.jpg

So take those "pre" ipad designs. Flatten the bezel and make it edge to edge screen (which was done in computers before the iphone/ipad) remove the buttons (all but power and volume) and what are you left with? a rectangle with rounded corners.

Apple was the first to successfully pair the capacitive screen to a tablet sized device, this is true (or at least the first to make it popular), but does that mean they should "own" the design when it's just a natural evolution of EXISTING tablets, not to mention concepts that predate the ipad and those tablets both by decades?
post #157 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)
post #158 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)

Isn't that the rule of thumb in design?

"If your photo frame is so complex that it needs an OS, you did it wrong."

Maybe I'm mixing phrases.
post #159 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)

Huh? Those ports are to transfer and store the photos. One of my old clients has one. That's a digital picture frame.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #160 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Huh? Those ports are to transfer and store the photos. One of my old clients has one. That's a digital picture frame.

Why would a picture frame be running windows vista?

Then again, it's a DED photoshop job, so it's possible he just added that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany