What I'm curious about is how this holds if Apple has a community design patent on a rectangle. Shouldn't that exclude any rectangular tablet?
ALL the elements claimed in the Apple Community Design claim must apply, not just most of them. IIRC they were six details claimed. With the minor changes Samsung has made to the bezel, it probably passes muster now. The final determination will be made by the German judge according to reports.
You all think Apple owns the right to "black, rectangular, and glass fronted tablet" and anything that resembles that is unoriginal...but this is a change and that is what Apple was asking for.
Heh, actually it's the fandroids that keep saying that. It's their standard response when a manufacturer (usually Samsung) is caught blatantly using Apple's product design, and there's no way to deny it.
I was under the impression it was under injunction because of an E.U. community design violation? What EU patents does it infringe on in Germany exactly?
In Germany, the Samung Galaxy Tab 10.1 has not yet been found to be infringing any of Apple's patents. You're correct -- in Germany, the violation that led to the injunction was all about a registered Community Design -- namely, a series of line drawings representing the 3-dimensional physical form of the device.
So far, Apple has not yet aggressively pursued any patent issues relating to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany for characteristics such as functionality, screen visuals, multitouch gestures, or anything else. Is that because they don't think they have a case if they went purely on the merits of patents they hold which are enforcable in Germany? Maybe.
But more likely IMO, they figured they'd pursue the low hanging fruit first. They probably thought it would be faster and less expensive to litigate initially on the merits of the community design alone, saving the heavy artillery (functional patents) for any future difficulties. From what I've read, the burden of obtaining injunctions based upon in European Community Design registrations is much lighter than the burden of obtaining injunctions based on functional patents.
Probably the reason they could only get 37 awards for innovative products and technologies at CES2011.
…
Or that they've invented and are perfecting the next gen non-volatile (flash) memory tech. Called ReRAM, it's claimed to be up to a million times faster than today's flash memory chips.
Without Samsung innovations and inventiveness, the iPhone and iPad might not even be in Apple product line. You've giving Samsung short shrift IMHO.
Yeah, great innovations in lens, washing machines, cameras, etc (did mention a few for phones but no details -- don't even know if they were feature phones or smart phones).
I doubt that Samsung's absence would have preventive iPhone or iPad. I don't think my crystal ball is any better than yours (but making a statement like that makes it sound like you think your pair are large).
If the court agrees that it looks adequately different from these drawings, then that's really all that matters with respect to the initial injunction. In that case, Apple would need to pursue different avenues (such as patents, or perhaps a different registered community design) if they want to continue their fight in Germany.
If the court agrees that it looks adequately different from these drawings, then that's really all that matters with respect to the initial injunction. In that case, Apple would need to pursue different avenues (such as patents, or perhaps a different registered community design) if they want to continue their fight in Germany.
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Apple didn't have to have any actual product that used that design. The entire claim rested on a piece of paper, not the real iPad.
By the way, Samsung has apparently confirmed (to a Korean newspaper) that the revised Galaxy Tab 1n goes on sale in Germany beginning next week.
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Because the design drawings are the things that receive registered protection under European community design legislation.
Comments
Why not just put a pair of those thick black glasses with big nose and brushy mustache on it.
That's funny!
The uppermost one with the protruding side bezel and front facing speakers is the modified "N" model.
Wow, I would have guessed the other. Interesting tact. Release a copy, and in the months that pass while being sued, upgrade it slightly.
What I'm curious about is how this holds if Apple has a community design patent on a rectangle. Shouldn't that exclude any rectangular tablet?
ALL the elements claimed in the Apple Community Design claim must apply, not just most of them. IIRC they were six details claimed. With the minor changes Samsung has made to the bezel, it probably passes muster now. The final determination will be made by the German judge according to reports.
You all think Apple owns the right to "black, rectangular, and glass fronted tablet" and anything that resembles that is unoriginal...but this is a change and that is what Apple was asking for.
Heh, actually it's the fandroids that keep saying that. It's their standard response when a manufacturer (usually Samsung) is caught blatantly using Apple's product design, and there's no way to deny it.
Would you please point out the changes made? Or at least tell us which of these is the new one.
That's easy, the one on the bottom is the iPad.
Oh, wait...
I was under the impression it was under injunction because of an E.U. community design violation? What EU patents does it infringe on in Germany exactly?
In Germany, the Samung Galaxy Tab 10.1 has not yet been found to be infringing any of Apple's patents. You're correct -- in Germany, the violation that led to the injunction was all about a registered Community Design -- namely, a series of line drawings representing the 3-dimensional physical form of the device.
So far, Apple has not yet aggressively pursued any patent issues relating to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany for characteristics such as functionality, screen visuals, multitouch gestures, or anything else. Is that because they don't think they have a case if they went purely on the merits of patents they hold which are enforcable in Germany? Maybe.
But more likely IMO, they figured they'd pursue the low hanging fruit first. They probably thought it would be faster and less expensive to litigate initially on the merits of the community design alone, saving the heavy artillery (functional patents) for any future difficulties. From what I've read, the burden of obtaining injunctions based upon in European Community Design registrations is much lighter than the burden of obtaining injunctions based on functional patents.
…
Or that they've invented and are perfecting the next gen non-volatile (flash) memory tech. Called ReRAM, it's claimed to be up to a million times faster than today's flash memory chips.
Without Samsung innovations and inventiveness, the iPhone and iPad might not even be in Apple product line. You've giving Samsung short shrift IMHO.
Yeah, great innovations in lens, washing machines, cameras, etc (did mention a few for phones but no details -- don't even know if they were feature phones or smart phones).
I doubt that Samsung's absence would have preventive iPhone or iPad. I don't think my crystal ball is any better than yours (but making a statement like that makes it sound like you think your pair are large).
That's very impressive.
A (set of) picture(s) speaks a thousand (or an order of magnitude higher) words.
Oh, so they made it look more like the 1st gen iPad and less like the 2nd gen iPad.
Got it.
They made it look less like the line drawings in this registered community design:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
If the court agrees that it looks adequately different from these drawings, then that's really all that matters with respect to the initial injunction. In that case, Apple would need to pursue different avenues (such as patents, or perhaps a different registered community design) if they want to continue their fight in Germany.
They made it look less like the line drawings in this registered community design:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
If the court agrees that it looks adequately different from these drawings, then that's really all that matters with respect to the initial injunction. In that case, Apple would need to pursue different avenues (such as patents, or perhaps a different registered community design) if they want to continue their fight in Germany.
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Apple didn't have to have any actual product that used that design. The entire claim rested on a piece of paper, not the real iPad.
By the way, Samsung has apparently confirmed (to a Korean newspaper) that the revised Galaxy Tab 1n goes on sale in Germany beginning next week.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/tech...02600320F.HTML
Could you clarify: why litigate on design drawings when the finished product is available in both cases? (This is a genuine question, not an argument in disguise.)
Because the design drawings are the things that receive registered protection under European community design legislation.