Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany - Page 3

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by Menno

No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.

And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Yes it is a serious question and what you have stated is no real excuse. Why should company X take all of the risk just to have company Y capitalize on it and then scream "Obvious!!!!" when it's taken to court?

Originally Posted by Menno

No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.

Originally Posted by Menno

And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Nice to see that Samsung got put in its place. Wait till the US case goes on stream.

IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.

The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.

Originally Posted by Jetz

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.

Originally Posted by Jetz

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.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

I was going to mention that... from 2006 no less (that is if the court ruled solely on "looks"):

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Apple's community design was registered in 2004 so that would have been inapplicable.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

Originally Posted by kevt

Yes!

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

Originally Posted by JONOROM

The crux of the story is the background. Apple would likely not have used this ridiculous patent if Samsung hadn't blatantly copied thier work.

Chances are good it will get overturned, but Apple won't mind even if they have to pay Samsung's lost revenue . See http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...alaxy-tab.html

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?

Originally Posted by Jetz

I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

People who don't like what Apple does aren't automatically trolls. Those with justification for their beliefs are welcome here.

But you have to ask them questions to see if they even have any arguments or if they're just parroting copy-pasted text on troll websites. You can't know otherwise.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.

"We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate," Lee said of the forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 in an interview with Yonhap News Agency. "Apple made it very thin."

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

Originally Posted by iamme73

Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first.

Originally Posted by Jetz

Does this argument really hold though when we are talking about litigating over a rectangle?

It's not like there weren't tablets that were rectangles with rounded corners before.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.

It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)

Originally Posted by kevt

Yes!

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)

Originally Posted by Jetz

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.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

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.

Originally Posted by Menno

no, the back of the current tab is texturized.

Originally Posted by guch20

My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.

Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?

Originally Posted by sennen

You over-simplify things to suit your simplistic argument. Is Apple suing all tablet manufacturers over this same issue? No.

Originally Posted by Kibitzer

Looks like the fairy God-moderators have granted your wish, because justin24 is banned how.

Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido

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.