That doesn't change the fact that Apple would have to at least give SOME evidence of this fact beyond "we think it's a possibility."
Apple's sales figures are not irrelevant. The tab is hardly the first device to mimic Apple's design. Apple should have some data somewhere that shows that mimiced devices hurt their sales, if that's what they're claiming.
The point of Trade Dress is to protect sales. If a design isn't hurting their sales, then the trade dress claim becomes a LOT weaker.
EDIT: You don't protect a design "just because it's new OMG" you protect it to keep others from pulling away marketshare from you by copying that design. But if those users wouldn't buy an ipad anyway (as people on this site almost universally declared as the only reason people would buy an android tablet) then they could copy the design EXACTLY and it still wouldn't impact your sales, and there would be no reason to go through the expensive process of protecting said design.
None of that makes any sense.
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.
It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.
Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.
On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.
Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.
The judge didn't say apple needed to do this, they just said it's going to make it much harder for Apple to prove their case unless they have some evidence to back it up. Which, as I understand this whole law thing, evidence is sort of an important part.
You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product. They're either buying on price variation, or they're buying for some other reason. If product design was all that mattered, Apple would've had an injunction on these guys before they ever put the tablet on sale:
But they didn't. Why? because it's a POS that goes for $100 at a drug store. So if someone bought it, they most likely weren't considering an ipad anyway. Apple is saying that with the Tab it's different. That the Tab hits the same market segment and that it's similar design to the iPad is what's helping it, and that those sales HARM apple's sales in some way (again, this is the point of trade dress. Trade dress isn't a "patent" on innovation)
This is why you typically don't see these cases until well after an infringing product has become established. You need a detrimental trend in order to have case. This preemptive lawsuit before Android tablets have a chance to saturate the market is risky. I don't think Apple will provide regional sales as I'm sure the iPad sales will increase phenomenally even if a competing tablet penetrates the market.
Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.
[...]
You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product.
Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
Data shouldn't be the only thing they offer, but data should be PART of what they offer.
To my knowledge, Apple has yet to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence (reported here or at Fosspatents) that shows how Samsung "Copying" them has negatively impacted their business. Not sales figures or ANY other data.
Again, trade dress is NOT a Patent. It's not given because something is "innovative" it's given to protect an "iconic" device from having other companies trade on the design/brand to sell product. It's up to apple to PROVE this. The judge is just saying that sales figures SHOULD be part of their defense.
(as for your figures, you can show sales month to month, show the trending predictions BEFORE the tab launched, and then readjusted predictions AFTER. If sales didn't slow down more than expected after the Tab released, it's unlikely that the tab impacted sales in any meaningful way)
I think this would be a pretty pleasurable thing for Apple to reveal.
Pleasurable in terms of sales revenue and profit, but if there iPad sales have increased with a similiar upward trend during the time frame in which the Samsung Tabs were on sale it will hurt their case.
Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.
Note: Menno has said since DAY ONE that Touchwiz and the Galaxy S line of phones is a bit too far and Apple has a case with them. In fact, Most android blogs even said this. The issue is Apple extending that lawsuit to other devices that don't come anywhere close to the design of touchwiz/galaxy S devices.
EDIT: I don't agree with the Galaxy Tab so much. First, it launched with Stock android, and the touchwiz update changes it even more (hovering apps, etc). yes, it's thin, and yes, they made it thinner because of the ipad 2, but how many ways can you make a THIN tablet style device? I have a tab, and while people might initially say "is that an ipad" all you have to do is hand it to them and within a few seconds they'll switch to "oh, it's not, what is it?"
People have that same incorrect assumption with any touchscreen device. People ask if a ZUNE is an ipod initially, because ipod=MP3 player to them. Just like iPhone=smartphone and (to a lesser extent) Droid=Android
This is why you typically don't see these cases until well after an infringing product has become established. You need a detrimental trend in order to have case. This preemptive lawsuit before Android tablets have a chance to saturate the market is risky. I don't think Apple will provide regional sales as I'm sure the iPad sales will increase phenomenally even if a competing tablet penetrates the market.
Exactly...this make sense.
I don't think ANY tablet will affect Apple's total domination in the tablet space....
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
And what if Apple releases their numbers and they have sold 1.2 million ipads in the US and 800K in the UK? Wouldn't those sales figures hold water, in relation to sales figures from all competitors that are equal? Maybe the judge is looking to see if the iPad is really selling like they claim, or if the PR machine is over-blowing the demand.
Disclaimer: I don't think the PR excuse is legit, but I'm throwing it out there since you like to belittle others about "how data can be used". You have no idea WHY the judge wants the numbers, so perhaps you don't have any understanding of how laws should be interpreted.
So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.
They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites
It's a faulty assumption that sales figures would "prove" anything at all. This doesn't sound like a rational request.
Well, here is the thing. If you looked at sales for iPad (pre android) and then at sales post galaxy tab you could see if there was any fall in demand right around the time Galaxy tab was released which could indicate the confusion. (that's pretty obvious so read on)
The problem is that ALL tablets pretty much look like the iPad at this point. Plus the case is a bit pre-emptive as apple still controls a huge chunk of the market.
So I think the request has some validity, but trying to figure out where the 1-5% fall in demand for iPad was caused by samsung's design or shifty best buy sales tactics is gonna be pretty hard.
Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.
It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.
Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.
On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.
They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites
You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.
You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.
Sure, but thats the situation when consumer can be confused, retail staf can promise anything, like, you can go to iTunes with this tablet, and you can by web, but you can`t run any app.
Actually, I don't see why the judge's request such a big deal. It will simply be a part of the data mix that goes into the decision, I imagine. It would be legitimate for the judge to get a sense for whether the rate of growth (relative to, say, a mean or median rate of growth ) has been affected by the introduction of the Samsung product.
Granted, it could go against Apple's assertions (if there is no difference in the rates of growth), but it is just as plausible that the opposite is true, which should be a cause for worry for Samsung.
Moreover, it would be totally fair game for Apple to have the judge ask for Samsung's sales numbers as well, in comparable regions. Now, that would be interesting to see (since all we've had are estimates up to this point). Finally, the truth will out.
So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
Exactly...its impossible to project this in a field so young.
Then Apple has no reasons to block the sales of the Samsung tablet...
Comments
That doesn't change the fact that Apple would have to at least give SOME evidence of this fact beyond "we think it's a possibility."
Apple's sales figures are not irrelevant. The tab is hardly the first device to mimic Apple's design. Apple should have some data somewhere that shows that mimiced devices hurt their sales, if that's what they're claiming.
The point of Trade Dress is to protect sales. If a design isn't hurting their sales, then the trade dress claim becomes a LOT weaker.
EDIT: You don't protect a design "just because it's new OMG" you protect it to keep others from pulling away marketshare from you by copying that design. But if those users wouldn't buy an ipad anyway (as people on this site almost universally declared as the only reason people would buy an android tablet) then they could copy the design EXACTLY and it still wouldn't impact your sales, and there would be no reason to go through the expensive process of protecting said design.
None of that makes any sense.
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.
It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.
Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.
On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.
Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.
The judge didn't say apple needed to do this, they just said it's going to make it much harder for Apple to prove their case unless they have some evidence to back it up. Which, as I understand this whole law thing, evidence is sort of an important part.
You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product. They're either buying on price variation, or they're buying for some other reason. If product design was all that mattered, Apple would've had an injunction on these guys before they ever put the tablet on sale:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/...-required/4185
But they didn't. Why? because it's a POS that goes for $100 at a drug store. So if someone bought it, they most likely weren't considering an ipad anyway. Apple is saying that with the Tab it's different. That the Tab hits the same market segment and that it's similar design to the iPad is what's helping it, and that those sales HARM apple's sales in some way (again, this is the point of trade dress. Trade dress isn't a "patent" on innovation)
Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.
[...]
You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product.
Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.
None of that makes any sense.
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
Data shouldn't be the only thing they offer, but data should be PART of what they offer.
To my knowledge, Apple has yet to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence (reported here or at Fosspatents) that shows how Samsung "Copying" them has negatively impacted their business. Not sales figures or ANY other data.
Again, trade dress is NOT a Patent. It's not given because something is "innovative" it's given to protect an "iconic" device from having other companies trade on the design/brand to sell product. It's up to apple to PROVE this. The judge is just saying that sales figures SHOULD be part of their defense.
(as for your figures, you can show sales month to month, show the trending predictions BEFORE the tab launched, and then readjusted predictions AFTER. If sales didn't slow down more than expected after the Tab released, it's unlikely that the tab impacted sales in any meaningful way)
I think this would be a pretty pleasurable thing for Apple to reveal.
Pleasurable in terms of sales revenue and profit, but if there iPad sales have increased with a similiar upward trend during the time frame in which the Samsung Tabs were on sale it will hurt their case.
Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.
Note: Menno has said since DAY ONE that Touchwiz and the Galaxy S line of phones is a bit too far and Apple has a case with them. In fact, Most android blogs even said this. The issue is Apple extending that lawsuit to other devices that don't come anywhere close to the design of touchwiz/galaxy S devices.
EDIT: I don't agree with the Galaxy Tab so much. First, it launched with Stock android, and the touchwiz update changes it even more (hovering apps, etc). yes, it's thin, and yes, they made it thinner because of the ipad 2, but how many ways can you make a THIN tablet style device? I have a tab, and while people might initially say "is that an ipad" all you have to do is hand it to them and within a few seconds they'll switch to "oh, it's not, what is it?"
People have that same incorrect assumption with any touchscreen device. People ask if a ZUNE is an ipod initially, because ipod=MP3 player to them. Just like iPhone=smartphone and (to a lesser extent) Droid=Android
This is why you typically don't see these cases until well after an infringing product has become established. You need a detrimental trend in order to have case. This preemptive lawsuit before Android tablets have a chance to saturate the market is risky. I don't think Apple will provide regional sales as I'm sure the iPad sales will increase phenomenally even if a competing tablet penetrates the market.
Exactly...this make sense.
I don't think ANY tablet will affect Apple's total domination in the tablet space....
None of that makes any sense.
Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?
Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?
But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.
Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
And what if Apple releases their numbers and they have sold 1.2 million ipads in the US and 800K in the UK? Wouldn't those sales figures hold water, in relation to sales figures from all competitors that are equal? Maybe the judge is looking to see if the iPad is really selling like they claim, or if the PR machine is over-blowing the demand.
Disclaimer: I don't think the PR excuse is legit, but I'm throwing it out there since you like to belittle others about "how data can be used". You have no idea WHY the judge wants the numbers, so perhaps you don't have any understanding of how laws should be interpreted.
So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.
They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites
It's a faulty assumption that sales figures would "prove" anything at all. This doesn't sound like a rational request.
Well, here is the thing. If you looked at sales for iPad (pre android) and then at sales post galaxy tab you could see if there was any fall in demand right around the time Galaxy tab was released which could indicate the confusion. (that's pretty obvious so read on)
The problem is that ALL tablets pretty much look like the iPad at this point. Plus the case is a bit pre-emptive as apple still controls a huge chunk of the market.
So I think the request has some validity, but trying to figure out where the 1-5% fall in demand for iPad was caused by samsung's design or shifty best buy sales tactics is gonna be pretty hard.
Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.
It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.
Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.
On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.
Excellent and logical.
They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites
You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.
You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.
Sure, but thats the situation when consumer can be confused, retail staf can promise anything, like, you can go to iTunes with this tablet, and you can by web, but you can`t run any app.
The New Galaxy Tab - iPad Killer*
*iPad sales will be entirely unaffected by the Galaxy Tab
Granted, it could go against Apple's assertions (if there is no difference in the rates of growth), but it is just as plausible that the opposite is true, which should be a cause for worry for Samsung.
Moreover, it would be totally fair game for Apple to have the judge ask for Samsung's sales numbers as well, in comparable regions. Now, that would be interesting to see (since all we've had are estimates up to this point). Finally, the truth will out.
So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.
Exactly...its impossible to project this in a field so young.
Then Apple has no reasons to block the sales of the Samsung tablet...
Then Apple has no reasons to block the sales of the Samsung tablet...
Ri~ght.