or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia - Page 3

post #81 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.

Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.

Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.

Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.

So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.


First, I agree with the shortfalls of royalty assessment. But what I am trying to say is that granting a preliminary injunction was too harsh for the matter at issue. The matter at issue is infringing on trade dress. For a gadget, since when this became a crucial factor for sales? It has always been the overall user experience with gadget, and while the Samsung's and Apple's gadget may look similar, the experiences are startlingly different due to their OS and hardware. Also, it will be the same, if not harder, to make Samsung whole when the final verdict comes out, though unlikely, against the preliminary injunction.

Second, I can't buy the argument that Apple defines itself by the overall design means anything. It is not just Apple but many other, if not all, companies try to do. It is just that Apple does it very well. And, I think I probably can't distinguish between SONY TV and SAMSUNG TV unless I come close and read the brand name on the TVs.

Finally, like I said, Apple should've registered its design as a trademark. But rather, they registered their UI and overall designs as patents. It is precisely because they know that arguing these cases through trademark, they have much slimmer chance of winning a verdict against Samsung.

Preliminary injunction is a very strong legal remedy especially for gadgets that have very short life span. It practically meant complete ban on Samsung's products without having a full trial at issue.

I don't think it was the right remedy because people know. People already love Apple more and criticize Samsung for copying out of moral reasons not legal reasons. Does Apple really need to be protected here? Maybe through damages... later...




Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .

The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.

If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.

Well, you never gave a reason why or how to distinguish between the two situations:

one about finally improving the notification system that's been successfully implemented by others,
and the other about finally improving the tablet design that's been successfully redefined by Apple.

Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.

Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?

IP Law is to protect creators and to protect fair market competition; but at the moment, Apple is using this tool way beyond well (rather sickly) and it is rather ATTACKING and BURYING their potential rivals and raising barriers to enter the market, by saying "oh dude, that one is just like ours, so stop selling it and make it look like a shit."
post #82 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?

"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.

It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #83 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If these patents hold up (In Australia) then Apple could effectively monopolize the modern touch device sector as single touch devices are not very functional.

Monopoly?

... and nobody else is enforcing patents for technology that seems obvious?

Even Apple is paying royalties for the use of various technologies.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #84 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Monopoly?

... and nobody else is enforcing patents for technology that seems obvious?

Even Apple is paying royalties for the use of various technologies.

And I don't agree with a single one of those. None of the others are pushing for a ban and a ban only though.... That I know of at least.
post #85 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.

It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.

No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.

Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
post #86 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.

Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.

Apple (via Fingerworks) may have a reasonable claim to have been the first to implement multitouch on a capacitative screen, which seems to be the basis for their patents. They clearly were not the first to design or use multitouch in general.
post #87 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.

Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.

We've been through this ad nauseam, and many of us are tired of rehashing the facts.

Perhaps you can take a the trouble to find those discussions from early 2007 to inform yourself. You'll learn a lot about what Apple 'invented' and did not, what Apple patented and did not, etc.
post #88 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You do know you're being disingenuous right?

That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.

The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.

The second is based on two broad patents.

soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.

Ok, I'll play the semantics game:

1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.

2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".

3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".

4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"

5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"

The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.

Soooo, let me just correct that for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? You bet'cha.
post #89 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

I must hand it to you Newton. I just could not understand anything tyler was saying, but obviously you did! Was that pro-Apple? Anti-Apple? I don't know. Why can't we just have straightforward trolls?

Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #90 of 171
deleted
post #91 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.

hahahahahhahahahha love it.
post #92 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:



Ok, I'll play the semantics game:

1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.

2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".

3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".

4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"

5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"

The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.

Soooo, let me just correct that for you:

so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?

So we agree.
post #93 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?

So we agree.

Hang on. Are we still talking about Australia? You agreed earlier that this injunction was not about design - it's about patents.
post #94 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If these patents hold up (In Australia) then Apple could effectively monopolize the modern touch device sector as single touch devices are not very functional.


Now one thing I don't get...

Apple didn't invent multitouch specifically as related to tech nor the entire concept of using more than one appendage/finger to manipulate something

nor did they invent the tech that is necessary for multitouch to exist...

so how do they own the patent to using more than one appendage of your body to manipulate something?

Apple had acquired Fingerworks who developed multi-touch technologies
post #95 of 171
deleted
post #96 of 171
deleted
post #97 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

And I don't agree with a single one of those. None of the others are pushing for a ban and a ban only though.... That I know of at least.

I don't think SJ was in favor of a ban either... but, by the sounds of it, Samsung didn't want to play ball... therefore, fuck 'em... ban it is.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #98 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?

So we agree.

No, I do not admit that, nor do we agree. In point of fact, I never stated anything of the sort.

As you can see in my post, what I stated was that a ban was apparently granted on the basis of a patent violation. I made no mention of the specifics or merits of the the patent or the ban. I furthermore explained to you why a patent infringement is by definition copying and theft, as you seemed to be confused about the definition.

On a personal note: You're not very good at this, are you? You're again trying to deflect by injecting irrelevant statements. You're like my 16-year old step-son, being contrary for it's own sake isn't constructive. You argue for the sake of argument, and when you exhaust even your weakest basis for argument, you simply emit nonsense.
post #99 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Apple's design-related disputes involve design patents.

That's, not surprisingly, true, but the patents involved in the Australian injunction are not design patents - they are about multitouch implementation - and the injunction is not about design.
post #100 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Hang on. Are we still talking about Australia? You agreed earlier that this injunction was not about design - it's about patents.

The topic sways between both injunctions. I was replying to a previous posters claim on Samsung copying the iPad which no one agreed was the case who mattered.
post #101 of 171
deleted
post #102 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Stop the Apple fanboyism. This injunction isn't about copying the appearance of the Apple iPad, it is about patents. Get your facts straight.

Wether it's appearance or functionality sales of Samsung products have been banned in three jurisdictions due to Samsung blatantly copying Apple.

This is undeniable fact.

Deal with it, move on...

...to the US next week.

The ban hammer is rapidly descending on the Korean phandroid golden child with rather loose morals.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #103 of 171
deleted
post #104 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

"MultiTouch" as a trademark was ruled against recently. The court said that the word was in such common usage, almost immediately after Apple released the iPhone, that it couldn't be trademarked. Of course it was in common usage because of Google's rip-off of Apple's technology.

Well, it looks like the copyists will be able to use the word but not the technology!

Trademark and patents are two different things. Apple was denied the trademark of "multi-touch" - meaning they cannot exclusively use the term multi-touch and prevent others from doing so. Patents on the technology, however, means that they hold the rights to the technology.
post #105 of 171
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
post #106 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Your post specifically said "earlier injunctions".

In this current case, it'll be interesting to see how long Apple's patent claims survive the "obvious" test once the full range of prior art it considered:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

See also Microsoft's earlier touch patent:


http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609

If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around, just like the bounce-back scroll which was ultimately the only claim Apple presented that wasn't completely thrown out by the Dutch court, where the court gave Samsung several weeks to revise the few lines of coded needed to avoid "infringement".

Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.

Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.
post #107 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by taekat View Post

The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.

Honestly...I don't really give a damn about Samsung. lol.

The reason I'm so defensive here is because the precedent these set for the future of products.

A ban based on a drawing?

A ban based on tech that was in the works for 40 years before it was popularized?

I can't agree. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Samsung, Sony, Toyota, Ford...doesn't matter.

I just personally cannot agree.

If Windows 8 had a dock that looked remarkably like OS X's dock I'd be against that 100%.

If Android looked like iOS to the point of MIUI in it's earlier iterations I'd be against it...hence why I'm againts touchwhiz and SOME iterations of the Galaxy S (T-mobile Vibrant I'm looking at you)

Samsung is a copycat firm...not to the extent mentioned by people here, but it's obvious.

If Apple wasn't going after the Xoom and HTC (who went out of their way to avoid similarity) I'd have nothing against the cases. But it is apparent they want to cut off the competitions legs by any means necessary...

which is shocking to me considering that IMO for the general consumer both Mac OS and iOS are much better suited than most Android devices and most bloatware filled PCs... the booming market share and rising stock is indicative of a mutual feeling across the board.
post #108 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.

Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.

It's easy to get turned around in this thread as we all keep wantonly discussing both injunctions
post #109 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


Fair enough: how many here are willing to take a bet that within two years the total sum Apple collects on these suits and counter-suits is less than their payouts?

Good analysis. I won't take your bet, although i am tempted. But I think you are missing the non-monetary effects. I AM willing to bet a large sum that Samsung will have stopped using Apple's "trade dress" in their products by your 2-year deadline. Which I believe was Apple's primary goal in suing Samsung all over the world.

It's not about the money for Apple, at least not in this instance. They will happily pay damages if they have achieved their goal: to sell products that are Different.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #110 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

It's easy to get turned around in this thread as we all keep wantonly discussing both injunctions

That's fine. I'm catching up.
post #111 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

An apple was the instrumentality of original sin.

Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.
post #112 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.

I'm sure it was nothing. -_-


but I always pictured a pomegranate.
post #113 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.

Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.

It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.

What about the Dutch judge said? He basically thrown out all the look and feel claims by Apple.

I read a Fullan Mul..'s article on FOSS site, even his translation I can see that the German judge discussed but implied the Community Design registered as legitimate. So, Samsung can rubbish the Cummunity Design in German Court, then this German judge decision has no relevance.

Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.

Apple might have known that the look and feel claim had no base, so they had to go with the software patents in Austraila. Absolute Design said that those patents were related to multi touch. If what he said is true, it only proves that how ridiculous they are patenting everyting while they are enjoying all goodies(Android Notification Centre) developed by others.

It is about monopoly nothing else.
post #114 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by taekat View Post

The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.

Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #115 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.

Now there's a nice welcome to a newcomer.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #116 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.

Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.

But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #117 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


A ban based on a drawing?

I can't agree.

Well, for better or worse the patent office doesn't accept physical models anymore, not since 1880. So most patents are based upon a drawing(s), at least in part.

And you can't agree? You wanna go back to models, eh?

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #118 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.

But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.

For god sake, have you seen the comunity design? It does not look like Ipad nor Samsung GT. It looks rather similar to tablets before 2004, see images AbsoluteDesign posted. If you look at the 'Tablet Newspapers (1994)', you can see that the Comunity Design is a copy from it.

Tech companies do compete each other in certain aspects like thinness. Anything wrong with that?
post #119 of 171
Hope everyone realizes that patented right is not a proof of an invention.
They very well can be invalidated/revoked.

Furthermore, it is hard to swallow the saying that Apple invented Multitouch when they merely acquired the company that invented a subset of multitouch technology.

Similar to what they did with A4 chipset. They bought Intrinsity after they already created A4 (Hummingbird variant), and then claim that they invented it.

The problem with Apple is that they hardly ever license stuff that they own.

Not very good for the consumer market, and very sketchy marketing tactics altogether.
post #120 of 171
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia