or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unlikely to win ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unlikely to win ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
A judge in Germany has indicated that Apple is unlikely to secure a ban on sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 for alleged patent infringement.

Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofman indicated at a hearing Thursday that it is unlikely that Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N will be banned from sale, according to Bloomberg. The Dusseldorf court found that Samsung has changed the look of its touchscreen tablet enough to distance itself from Apple's iPad.

"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said. "We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."

A final ruling in the case has been set for Feb. 9. Apple's attorneys attempted to convince the court that that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 is "exploiting the reputation of the iPad."

Samsung has suggested that Apple's lawsuits blocking the Galaxy Tab have boosted awareness of the device. The company has even initiated an advertising campaign stating the device is "the tablet Apple tried to stop."



Though Apple initially won a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung redesigned the device and renamed it the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in an attempt to avoid patent infringement claims from Apple. The new tablet has thicker edges and speakers that accompany the front screen.

Apple made the first attack in the courtroom against Samsung in April, with a lawsuit accusing the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. That sparked a worldwide legal battle in which both companies have accused the other of patent infringement.
post #2 of 69
Logic at last!
post #3 of 69
Does Apple have patented those in Germany? If so then... nice try.

Reminder: Patent law is regional. Some countries do not give... about US Patent. If you want to bring US ITC in place then perhaps some governments will get into trouble for signing anything with US ITC while under law of sovereign country.

I say USPO does mediocre work and it opens "law trading" market which is not a law but business.

Patent rules of Europe:

1. Innovative
2. Cannot be covered under different pattent (multiple times).
3. Time limit.
4. Pay for sustatining for period of time.
5. Right of use by people who came up before a corporation applied for patent (if there is proof).

Those ruleas are thought in Universities and not anly to lawyers in Europe.
post #4 of 69
Another Domino effect. That's two happening for 2012. Android already winning the smartphone. Next Tablets and now lawsuits falling against Apple. It's going to be a challenging year for Apple.
post #5 of 69
@slapppy: When you are playing with only two dominos, calling domino effect is rather silly wouldn't you say? Perhaps its time to sit back and assess the situation from a wider perspective than your own needs, wants and desires.

OT, each of these lawsuits is a strategic move in corporate life. I can guarantee that each lawsuit mapped out by each team is being used as a bargaining point as they negotiate their relationships in the market as competitors as well as client/supplier.

Perhaps certain commenters in these threads would benefit from some basic business courses to enlighten their commentary.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #6 of 69
So Samsung's market positioning is: "we're incompetent to come up with anything ourselves and the first version of the Tab was so nearly identical to the iPad that it was banned in several countries. Therefore, we stretched our innovation to the limit and were just barely able to come up with a device that can be distinguished from an iPad on close inspection."

Doesn't sound like much of a strategy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 69
Not really of any consequence, they won't be selling too many anyway. Of course sales figures will include channel stuffing but otherwise only Apple haters will be buying.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

@slapppy: When you are playing with only two dominos, calling domino effect is rather silly wouldn't you say? Perhaps its time to sit back and assess the situation from a wider perspective than your own needs, wants and desires.

OT, each of these lawsuits is a strategic move in corporate life. I can guarantee that each lawsuit mapped out by each team is being used as a bargaining point as they negotiate their relationships in the market as competitors as well as client/supplier.

Perhaps certain commenters in these threads would benefit from some basic business courses to enlighten their commentary.

Well one set of dominos is for product category. The other is for the legal category. Thats not too hard to grasp now is it?
post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Another Domino effect. That's two happening for 2012. Android already winning the smartphone. Next Tablets and now lawsuits falling against Apple. It's going to be a challenging year for Apple.

Ladies and gentlemen, a 12 year old.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said.

Using a similar looking design for an overall inferior product is exactly the problem. Consumers are deceived into thinking they are getting the same experience as the original. The advertising of the copyists is designed to overcome the vigilance of the consumers, so they are NOT well aware of the differences.

Quote:
"We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."

So what? Is that the criterion for determining if there is patent infringement? Quite a shallow and irrelevant observation from the judge.
post #11 of 69
Apple put a huge amount of effort into form research and Samsung ripped it off. Thieves win again. I can only hope karma comes back to haunt them.
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

using a similar looking design for an overall inferior product is exactly the problem. Consumers are deceived into thinking they are getting the same experience as the original. The advertising of the copyists is designed to overcome the vigilance of the consumers, so they are not well aware of the differences.



So what? Is that the criterion for determining if there is patent infringement? Quite a shallow and irrelevant observation from the judge.

+1000
post #13 of 69
In essence the judge is saying it's highly unlikely that anyone would be confused as to whether they had purchased the redesigned Galaxy Tab or Apple iPad. Since I doubt anyone commenting here has seen the redesigned product it's difficult to dispute the judge's opinion. Add to that Apple's own court filing on what change(s) would be needed to avoid Apple's Community Design (remember that it was never strictly about resembling an iPad) and Samsung's apparent use of the advice to fix the problem.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 69
The original ban should have never been granted in the first place. Apple should never have been granted a patent on rectangular, thin and rounded corners in my opinion...

It is good to see the courts finally coming to their senses....

Finally, If you bother to push the power button they are completely different devices.....
post #15 of 69

"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said. "We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."

So what's the purpose of patents and trademarks then, if everyone already knows?
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said. "We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."

So what's the purpose of patents and trademarks then, if everyone already knows?

So that competitors can't market identical devices. There's nothing wrong in noting another company's success and emulating their product with one that's similar if you have the means to do so and you believe you can profit. Business has been done that way for hundreds of years. Too many here seem to feel copy, resemble, identical and similar all carry the same meaning and are interchangeable.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So Samsung's market positioning is: "we're incompetent to come up with anything ourselves and the first version of the Tab was so nearly identical to the iPad that it was banned in several countries. Therefore, we stretched our innovation to the limit and were just barely able to come up with a device that can be distinguished from an iPad on close inspection."
Doesn't sound like much of a strategy.

Or, why don't we design and manufacture our own arm cpu, memory and screen technology for our own tablet, and we manufacture the cpu and memory (and screen?) for our main competitor as well...

sounds like a strategy to me
post #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Or, why don't we design and manufacture our own arm cpu, memory and screen technology for our own tablet, and we manufacture the cpu and memory (and screen?) for our main competitor as well...

sounds like a strategy to me

That's an entirely different division and is irrelevant to the Tab case.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #19 of 69
This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozchris View Post

Apple put a huge amount of effort into form research and Samsung ripped it off. Thieves win again. I can only hope karma comes back to haunt them.

Take iPod touch, times it by 3 you have an iPad. Not a hugh amount of effort there. The genius of the iPad is the OS. When people are buying tablets they are buying into an ecosystem, Apple could load iOS onto a brick and it would sell, of course they would then sue the makers of homes for infringing on one of their patents.
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?

You are correct from my understanding. I'd have to ask my brother, who is an intellectual property attorney. It's a question of infringement, I' m sure...but I'm not sure how other factors affect the remedy. It's the same concept as the U.S. case a few weeks ago. The judge found "likely infringement" but refused to ban the products because, essentially, they deemed the non-Apple product to not be a competitive threat.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?

Samsung did what Apple suggested to avoid infringing the Community Design, and it's sufficient in the Judge's view. Fairly simple. The top quote about not confusing the two is secondary and simply an observation IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?

Well said.

Copycats have done much damage to inventors, while taking away market share, shamelessly maligning the inventors and worse, feeling great about it. Wow, what shallowness.

Sony fails to innovate in phones, and thus loses market share, no matter how much marketing it tries.

Samsung now joins a line of copycats, how much can it feed off Apple? Customers are smarter and will sooner shift to the better choice. With similar prices and far better performance, Apple products like the iPad and iPhone are poised to be chosen as the better buy.
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacerays View Post

Well said.

Copycats have done much damage to inventors, while taking away market share, shamelessly maligning the inventors and worse, feeling great about it. Wow, what shallowness.

Sony fails to innovate in phones, and thus loses market share, no matter how much marketing it tries.

Samsung now joins a line of copycats, how much can it feed off Apple? Customers are smarter and will sooner shift to the better choice. With similar prices and far better performance, Apple products like the iPad and iPhone are poised to be chosen as the better buy.

You two should get a room. Remember though, according to most on this forum, marketshare means nothing so who cares??
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozchris View Post

Apple put a huge amount of effort into form research and Samsung ripped it off. Thieves win again. I can only hope karma comes back to haunt them.

I'm in general agreement with that statement - and if any disclosure of bias is necessary then I've been a Mac user professionally since 1992 (only needed four upgrades during those 20 years) and have never owned any Samsung products.

However, Samsung are capable of designing visually different products when they try... their recent NX10 and NX11 mirrorless digital cameras are very different in styling from anything Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, et al have produced for the serious photography enthusiast. So kudos to Samsung in that area.
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

I'm in general agreement with that statement - and if any disclosure of bias is necessary then I've been a Mac user professionally since 1992 (only needed four upgrades during those 20 years) and have never owned any Samsung products.

However, Samsung are capable of designing visually different products when they try... their recent NX10 and NX11 mirrorless digital cameras are very different in styling from anything Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, et al have produced for the serious photography enthusiast. So kudos to Samsung in that area.

Exactly. Bottom line is that there is only so many ways to skin a cat so too speak. With so many companies in the "tablet" business, things are going to look the same, period. Apple has the privilige of being first too market therefore everything else is going to look like an iPad in one way or another. As I stated earlier, the true genius of the iPad is the OS not the design, Apple is just using the design to try and squash some competition, which did not work.
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ladies and gentlemen, a 12 year old.

You really believe he is the old?
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So Samsung's market positioning is: "we're incompetent to come up with anything ourselves and the first version of the Tab was so nearly identical to the iPad that it was banned in several countries. Therefore, we stretched our innovation to the limit and were just barely able to come up with a device that can be distinguished from an iPad on close inspection."

Doesn't sound like much of a strategy.

ipad has the same general shape as other tablets before it

samsung's lawyers are just morons
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So that competitors can't market identical devices. There's nothing wrong in noting another company's success and emulating their product with one that's similar if you have the means to do so and you believe you can profit. Business has been done that way for hundreds of years. Too many here seem to feel copy, resemble, identical and similar all carry the same meaning and are interchangeable.

The casing of the devises are pretty much identical, down to the connector, black framing, round edges, metal trim, and even the packaging. If you cannot protect that, as was the case in Australia and now Germany, then what's the use of all those attorneys?

Samsung has applied for over 4,000 patents this year alone, and they use them against other manufacturers who use a process that they find to be similar. So it seems to be working fine in that industry, but when it comes to the "look and feel" or design industry, patents and trademarks seems to be quite useless.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

The casing of the devises are pretty much identical, down to the connector, black framing, round edges, metal trim, and even the packaging. If you cannot protect that, as was the case in Australia and now Germany, then what's the use of all those attorneys?

Samsung has applied for over 4,000 patents this year alone, and they use them against other manufacturers who use a process that they find to be similar. So it seems to be working fine in that industry, but when it comes to the "look and feel" or design industry, patents and trademarks seems to be quite useless.

Isn't "pretty much identical" really just similar?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 69
Are notebook designs patented? PC tower computer case designs? Not really. At least not that I can think of. They all look pretty similar. In the end I don't think Apple really gives a rip because they know their products are far superior and they have a huge head start in the marketplace. I think they're just sticking it to Samsung a bit and slowing them down.
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

Does Apple have patented those in Germany? If so then... nice try.

First of all, the issue at play in the German case was never about patents, it was about a European intellectual property concept called "Community Design".

But, if we ignore the discrepancy in language for the moment, then I'll attempt to answer your question:

YES, the intellectual property that Apple was attempting to assert in this case was duly registered with the relevant European authorities.
Apple was NOT trying to assert any US-registered intellectual property in the German case.

Specifically:
The original design of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was found to be in violation of a piece of registered European intellectual property (specifically, a Registered Community Design) that the German court held to be valid at face value. Samsung was (and still is) banned from importing the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 into Germany on the basis of that original court ruling.

Samsung responded by creating a custom modification of the Galaxy Tab specifically for the German market in response to the original ruling. Samsung slightly changed the device's outline profile. The German court has suggested that in all probability, they will decide that the modification Samsung made was adequate to mean that it no longer violates the registered European community design in question.
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?

NO IT IS NOT A PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

It is a community design infringement lawsuit. As such, it is all about the physical appearance of the device, and how similar it looks to the following set of three-dimensional line drawings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001

The only Samsung had to do, was make sure the new revision of their device looked adequately different from that set of line drawings.

How do you define something being "adequately different"? In this judge's opinion, it is "adequately different" if a casual observer would not be confused by looking at one and then looking at the other. Honestly, that seems like a fairly reasonable definition to me.
post #34 of 69
The decision has been made. Apple lost this one. Embarrassing for Apple.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/24686...n_germany.html
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Using a similar looking design for an overall inferior product is exactly the problem. Consumers are deceived into thinking they are getting the same experience as the original. The advertising of the copyists is designed to overcome the vigilance of the consumers, so they are NOT well aware of the differences.





I don't think so. Apple buyers are not morons. Apple buyers are sophisticated consumers who know what is best.
post #36 of 69
The German judge has stated the others are just copies of an original. Apple needs to advertise how the copies are inferior.
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



Samsung has applied for over 4,000 patents this year alone, and they use them against other manufacturers who use a process that they find to be similar.




You might think that is evil, but Samsung has no choice but to protect their Intellectual Property.
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The decision has been made. Apple lost this one. Embarrassing for Apple.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/24686...n_germany.html



Apple is not embarrassed. Apple is shameless.
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

@slapppy: When you are playing with only two dominos, calling domino effect is rather silly wouldn't you say? Perhaps its time to sit back and assess the situation from a wider perspective than your own needs, wants and desires.

OT, each of these lawsuits is a strategic move in corporate life. I can guarantee that each lawsuit mapped out by each team is being used as a bargaining point as they negotiate their relationships in the market as competitors as well as client/supplier.

Perhaps certain commenters in these threads would benefit from some basic business courses to enlighten their commentary.

Certain commenters would benefit from basic business courses?

Hell, I'll be happy if they just learn maths, common sense, and build their self-esteem to the point where they don't have to troll the forum boards of products they hate just to get attention...
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Another Domino effect. That's two happening for 2012. Android already winning the smartphone. Next Tablets and now lawsuits falling against Apple. It's going to be a challenging year for Apple.

I think it's actually going to be a challenging year for Samsung.

I mean, who are they going to copy next year?
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple unlikely to win ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unlikely to win ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany