or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs

post #1 of 118
Thread Starter 
An appeals court in The Netherlands has sided with Samsung and ruled that its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet does not infringe on patented designs owned by Apple.

The Dutch court determined that the valid scope of Apple's asserted design-related right was narrow, which means it was not infringed upon by Samsung, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.

The prior art considered in the case was six different designs, including the HP Compaq TC 1000 and a Knight-Ridder tablet concept first detailed in 1994.

"The two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins," Mueller explained. "There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity up to (for example) 70%. Instead, they need guidance from judges."

The latest ruling is yet another setback for Apple in its attempts to bar sales of the Galaxy Tab family of products. Apple found some initial success and even prompted Samsung to redesign its tablet and create the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to avoid infringement, but many earlier injunctions that had temporarily barred the sales of Galaxy Tab products have since been overturned, allowing Samsung to release its products.

The Dutch court's ruling comes a week before the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court in Germany is set to hear an appeal related to a preliminary injunction granted to Apple. In addition, Germany's Dusseldorf Regional Court is scheduled to decide in early February whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1N infringes on Apple's design patents.




Last week, a German court tossed a lawsuit in which Samsung accused Apple of violated a patent related to 3G/UMTS wireless communications. And earlier in the week, Apple filed a new lawsuit in Germany accusing Samsung's Galaxy S II and nine other smartphones, along with five tablet models, of patent infringement.

The ongoing legal battle between Samsung and Apple got underway last April, when Apple filed the first lawsuit, accusing Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Both companies are now engaged in a worldwide legal battle that has sparked lawsuits in 10 countries across four continents.
post #2 of 118
Quote:
The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.



"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPadthe first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually iswe're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.

These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #3 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPadthe first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually iswe're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.

These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.

This was the appeal to the Netherland's High Court. It's done and over.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This was the appeal to the Netherland's High Court. It's done and over.

But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #5 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.

Yap, I don't like then it is illegal
post #6 of 118
You remember this isn't about Samsung copying the iPad. It's all about a Community Design, a two-dimensional drawing that Apple filed rights to. They still have the Community Design as it wasn't invalidated unlike some of their recent patent claims. It's just that certain elements that Apple was trying to assert sole rights to were too broad and Samsung's use of those particular elements had a history of being used before well before Apple put them on a piece of paper and filed with the EU.

This wasn't iPad vs. Tab.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.

SHOW US exactly how it is "blatantly illegal" please. Better yet, send that information to their appeals court. Oh, their appeals court ended it. It IS legal. It is over. Move on.

I do use an iPhone and a Mac Mini (not to mention using Apple computers since my first Apple IIc), but I am really getting tire of Apple's "sue them all' mentality. Does anyone even know what patents are actually being sued over? Seems to be a big waste of time, energy, and money that could be better used in the creation of new hardware and software. I guess that would only be true if all the blood-sucking lawyers were retrained in a hardware/software design career. It shames me to admit that I have family that are lawyers.
post #8 of 118
Why did Samsung go back and redesign the Tab to get around the Injunction in Germany then?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-573...nd-injunction/
post #9 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.

Denial much? The fork is stuck, this case is over.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #10 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

It shames me to admit that I have family that are lawyers.

I can imagine they are just as shamed to have a Fandroid in the family.
post #11 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub View Post

Why did Samsung go back and redesign the Tab to get around the Injunction in Germany then?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-573...nd-injunction/

They didn't want to wait to find out if the initial "emergency injunction" was going to be upheld in the final ruling, and needed to get sales underway. The final judgement is due within a couple of weeks IIRC. Personally I think the court will find that Apple should never had received the preliminary injunction to begin with and will be ordered to pay damages to Samsung. That's just my personal view and I'm no lawyer.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

SHOW US exactly how it is "blatantly illegal" please. Better yet, send that information to their appeals court. Oh, their appeals court ended it. It IS legal. It is over. Move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Denial much? The fork is stuck, this case is over.

So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?

"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."

EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.

The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #13 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?

Irrelevant only for you, much denial?
post #14 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I can imagine they are just as shamed to have a Fandroid in the family.

What part of the English language do you not understand?

1. Have owned Apple computers since my first Apple IIc (my first was an Atari 800).
2. Currently own an iPhone 4 and Mac Mini.
3 (Wasn't in my original post, but for clarification) I don't own an Android phone. I tried one and returned it. Same with a Samsung Focus running Windows Phone OS - returned it.

So, how exactly am I a "Fandroid"? Because I don't think that everything Apple does is 100% rosy? Get a life.

Using your argument: I like steaks, but have problems with system where beef is raised and slaughtered in the U.S., so I must therefore be a vegan? Wow, just ... wow.
post #15 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?

"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."

I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.
post #16 of 118
No surprise - Apple's thermonuclar strategy against Android will at best result in expensive legal stalemates. It's time for Cook to put a fork it and pursue a pragmatic course of action and sign patent agreements ala Microsoft and LG.
post #17 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But it's blatantly illegal. It can't be over.


In the context of this case, "illegal" means what the court deems it to mean. This is not an entirely objective process. If it were, we'd have flowcharts instead of judges.
post #18 of 118
Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.
post #19 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

No surprise - Apple's thermonuclar strategy against Android will at best result in expensive legal stalemates. It's time for Cook to put a fork it and pursue a pragmatic course of action and sign patent agreements ala Microsoft and LG.

Agreed. Apple's products need to stand or fall on their own merit (and I think they will). The thing that will take down Apple is not Android, etc., but instead will be some future internal decisions. That is what almost killed Apple the first time around. Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.
post #20 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.

Sigh...it is NOT about copying....How difficult is it to understand this? It is an argument over patents and their use...
post #21 of 118
Pay no attention to those 70 inch Samsung set's being delivered to the courthouse or all the sudden high end cars the officials are now driving.



Just kidding.
post #22 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?

"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."

EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.

The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.

So are you calling the judges corrupts?
post #24 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.

He simply doesn't want to accept this. It is like talking to a wall.
post #25 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.

Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.
"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 #26 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

Think of it this way:

If Honda sued Toyota for using bucket seats after Honda "innovated" them, Toyota could show a 1920's car to the judge with bucket seats, in order to prove that Honda had no right to exclusive use of bucket seats.

Likewise, if Sylvania popularized a tubular lightbulb, and someone else copied it, the copier could show that tubular bulbs had been used in Edison's day, to prove that Sylvania should have no exclusive rights.

IIRC, this case used many examples of prior art, ranging from depictions in fiction to Samsung's own prior products.
post #27 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.

AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh
post #28 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh

And the irony is that the iPad si more different from the community design than the Galaxy Tab
post #29 of 118
Anyone know a few Dutch jokes, so we can blow off some steam?
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #30 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Sigh...it is NOT about copying...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

AGAIN...NOT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE of the devices...sigh

So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #31 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.

IIRC, Sony used a proprietary digital music format in its early portable players. IMO, that is what killed them in that market. They had it sewn up with the Walkman, and they blew it with their early digital players.

MiniDisk too - a good format, but limited to Sony, and therefore less appealing commercially. Sony also insisted on using a proprietary memory card format, which was distasteful to many people.

What side of the BluRay/HD DVD war was Sony on? I've not paid much attention to Sony since the late 1990's.
post #32 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But it's blatantly illegal.

So you're an expert in Dutch law. You must be if you are contending that this tactic is 'blatantly illegal'

You might not like the ruling or what the courts examined, but perhaps under Dutch law they are allowed to do so.

And in the end, perhaps even Apple knew they weren't likely to win in all courts of law. But they had other reasons for doing this. The first being the requirement to protect, or attempt to do so, or forfeit all rights under trade dress law. The second being that these cases have been talked about a lot in the blogs etc. The similarities and timings are now known to a lot more people that before wouldn't have been attentive to such details. And while the courts might say that there was no illegal copying, the court of public opinion might think twice on the issue of how much inspiration Samsung is taking from another company. And that could produce a win that is even better for Apple. A loss in court means little if the winner's products still lack in sales. And frankly I haven't seen anything Samsung blowing it away sales wise (especially once you account for high return rates)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #33 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact,

In the Netherlands at this moment yes.

Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so. And might be able to wait to see what other EU courts are saying to use that in the process. Or tweak the approach and file another suit.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #34 of 118
OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

You OK with that?
Just asking.
post #35 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

In the Netherlands at this moment yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

You OK with that?
Just asking.


Ah, even if justice says they are not copying you say they are copying. Curious view of justice, I won't change my mind even if reality says other thing
post #36 of 118
As mentioned before, the dutch case was solely based on the community design. Heck, the ipad doesn't even look like the community design

post #37 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?

Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not, or to be specific those elements that Apple claimed Samsung was using had already been used by previous devices before Apple drew them.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

You OK with that?
Just asking.

As I'm Dutch I'll react...

Absolutely no problem with your suggestion, as long as you don't claim the paintings are real van Goghs.

Samsung has never sold their galaxy tab as an 'Apple iPad'
post #39 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not.

The biggest problem with this whole lawsuit is not the lawsuit itself but whoever allowed the community design and gave it a legal status. The sketches are far too generic.

Seems related to the 'trivial' software patents which should also have not been allowed.
post #40 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings.

No, that's not what I mean. I mean a different suit between the iPad and the Tab for the purpose of determining similarity of appearance.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court rules Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe on Apple's designs