Apple wins permanent ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany

1568101113

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 250
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?



    The original Galaxy Tab 10.1v has an eight megapixel camera, how is dropping it to three megapixels "upping the specs"?
  • Reply 142 of 250
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    All that said, a ruling that basically says no other OEM is allowed to make and sell a tablet in Germany that's a rectangle is pretty bogus. Just imagine if Henry Ford took had gotten a design patent on motorized vehicles with four wheels. This is pretty damn close that kind of logic.



    Just imagine if BMW got a design patent on the distinctive grille pattern of their cars...



    ...oh hang on, they do.



    There goes that argument.
  • Reply 143 of 250
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The original Galaxy Tab 10.1v has an eight megapixel camera, how is dropping it to three megapixels "upping the specs"?



    My mistake. You're right. They dropped the specs on the camera (which they claim was due to space reduction). Again though, how does this make it more like the iPad? If a laptop comes with the same hard drive size as my MBP, does that mean it's automatically a rip-off of what's in my backpack? If anything lowering their specs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.



    And again, how does any of this have to do with this ruling which concerns a basic shape. The judge never said that the Tab was similiar to the iPad because of the specs, because of the UI, because of the look and feel. He said it infringed because it was a rectangle. Heck, they banned the 7in. tablet on that basis too. And I'm hard-pressed to see how something the size of a Kindle could be mistaken in any way for an iPad.
  • Reply 144 of 250
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Just imagine if BMW got a design patent on the distinctive grille pattern of their cars...



    ...oh hang on, they do.



    There goes that argument.



    Apple's patent is broader than that. It's more akin to the Henry Ford example.



    If Apple had a patent on the shape of the iPad with a circular home button at the bottom that would be something close to your example. And something I'd support by the way.
  • Reply 145 of 250
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Seriously?



    The iPad is a new category? That's like suggesting that somebody who comes out with new display tech (say LED TVs) would be right to seek out a patent for rectangular displays using said tech. I'm sorry I don't agree with that logic.




    You are not reading my post. I clearly said "the iPad is a tablet computer". Meaning it is not a market by itself and therefore not a category. What you've just wrote agrees with what you quoted me saying.



    Quote:

    There were tablets before the iPad. The only change was the deployment of a consumer focused mobile OS. None of the hardware changes that came with the iPad were unforeseen (just not possible before due to cost). And a lot of commercial grade (non-consumer) stuff was already moving in that direction. Not to say the iPad wasn't revolutionary to consumers. But from a purely technological point of view, I'd suggest it was evolutionary. I don't even consider it to be as ground-breaking as the iPod clickwheel.



    The iPad is about software as much as hardware.



    Quote:

    People forget that before the iPad first came out, there were lots of folks suggesting that Apple should make a tablet that was a big iPod Touch. And it really wasn't that much of a surprise when they did. Indeed, that's exactly why detractors mocked it, "It's just a giant iTouch." So then to suggest that it's not an obvious leap is quite a stretch.



    I believe everyone wanted a Mac OS tablet with iPhone like touch. I remember everyone was disappointed because it wasn't a Mac and it was "big iPod touch" instead.



    Quote:

    Right. They upped the specs on the rear camera and added 4G connectivity. This is copying the iPad how?



    They actually downgraded the camera from 8MP. Probably to make it thinner



    Quote:

    I don't want to waste my time discussing with you if you think that Apple should be the sole supplier to humanity of any computer device with a touchscreen that's rectangular.



    I'm going to ask you a straight-up question: Do you think ANY tablet that's rectangular and has rounded corners is a copy of an iPad? Yes or no.



    I never said that everyone with a rectangular form factor and touch screen is a copy of the iPad. My point was that Samsung copies their competitors, in this case the iPad, and they deserve everything they are getting as a result. Even if it was on something weak like that community design. Like I said before, Apple have more patents to throw at Samsung. If this injunction get thrown out in appeal, which most likely will be, they will likely be found infringing on something else.



    Apple only used that community design against Samsung. They don't seem to think it applies for their other lawsuits against Motorola and HTC. There is no reason to believe the Apple want to have a monopoly on rectangular tablets with touch screen.
  • Reply 146 of 250
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    I never said that everyone with a rectangular form factor and touch screen is a copy of the iPad. My point was that Samsung copies their competitors, in this case the iPad, and they deserve everything they are getting as a result. Even if it was on something weak like that community design. Like I said before, Apple have more patents to throw at Samsung. If this injunction get thrown out in appeal, which most likely will be, they will likely be found infringing on something else.



    Fair enough. And I do agree with Samsung getting the treatment that it is. I've said that before.



    However, rulings like this are dangerous. They set really bad precedents (and across other fields too). Whatever your feelings on Samsung, you have to concur with that. What if the situation were reversed and Samsung had the patent for a rectangle and they blocked imports of the iPad into Germany? Would that have any thing to do with innovation at all? And would you agree with it then or would you think it was pretty stupid? Do you really believe that Apple should be given the right to be the SOLE supplier to Germany of ANY rectangular tablet computers of ANY SIZE till 2030? (Registered Community Designs are valid for 25 years). That's what the ruling says. You agree with that?



    This is not about liking or disliking Samsung products (I for one will never buy a Samsung phone). To me this about a stupid application of an overly broad patent. If Apple has other patents (and they do), they should assert them. Winning on a patent like this.....I dunno.
  • Reply 147 of 250
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    ...and you should see the reaction on here when Apple does get sued by those who are allegedly trying to protect their intellectual property too.



    Sooner or later, Apple is going to get hit with a "gotcha" lawsuit just like this one. I trust, everybody on AI will then agree that it's perfectly okay for the other party to engage in such tactics.



    I have read some of those threads and while others may grumble, I don't. If there is prior art or the patent is invalidated, great. If not, too bad so sad pay the dude.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    My mistake. You're right. They dropped the specs on the camera (which they claim was due to space reduction). Again though, how does this make it more like the iPad? If a laptop comes with the same hard drive size as my MBP, does that mean it's automatically a rip-off of what's in my backpack? If anything lowering their specs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.



    And again, how does any of this have to do with this ruling which concerns a basic shape. The judge never said that the Tab was similiar to the iPad because of the specs, because of the UI, because of the look and feel. He said it infringed because it was a rectangle. Heck, they banned the 7in. tablet on that basis too. And I'm hard-pressed to see how something the size of a Kindle could be mistaken in any way for an iPad.



    You are taking one component (camera) out of the whole. Samsung didn't just use a lower spec camera to make it thinner. It changed the back significantly to look more like an Apple product. As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.
  • Reply 148 of 250
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    . . . As for the several posts of "what does this have to do with the case? patenting a rectangle is WRONG!" Several people have already expressed that if Samsung hadn't chosen to blatently mimic Apple's designs, this case most likely would have never happened. Don't like the ruling and the community design in question? Become a German citizen and write your local politician.



    An argument which does nothing to explain why the Xoom, which has no resemblance to an iPad, is also being accused of the same design infringement of the rectangular drawings submitted and accepted. Apple didn't file all those undetailed drawings for EU design patents, at minimum 1000 (since that's the limit on records that can be listed with a search) for products they've never offered to just go unused. They're filed as insurance against any potential competitor. Take the time to look thru the EU design patents they've filed, and the numerous variations covering just about every possible look that could be imagined and the goal will be eminently clear.



    IMHO, if you design an iPod competitor, a tablet to compete with Apple's iPad, or even any yet to be thought of portable computing device, you should hope it doesn't become a high profile success., putting you on Apple's radar. They've probably already filed a Community Design patent on the shape no matter what it is.



    EDIT: I'm guessing it may not be clear that the German court is not ruling that the Galaxy Tab resembles the iPad specifically. The ruling that Samsung infringes is based on a comparison to the drawing that Apple holds rights to, that by chance resembles it's iPad product in some ways.



    As the Court made clear: "The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy Tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right," Brueckner-Hoffman said. "Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology."
  • Reply 149 of 250
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    An argument which does nothing to explain why the Xoom, which has no resemblance to an iPad, is also being accused of the same design infringement on the rectangular drawings submitted and accepted. Apple didn't file all those undetailed drawings for design patents, at minimum 1000 (since that's the limit on records that can be listed with a search) for products they've never offered to just to go unused. They're filed as insurance against any potential competitor. Take the time to look thru the EU design patents they've filed, and the numerous variations covering just about every possible look that could be imagined and the goal will be eminently clear.



    IMHO, if you design an iPod competitor, a tablet to compete with Apple's iPad, or even any yet to be thought of portable computing device, you should hope it doesn't become a high profile success., putting you on Apple's radar. They've probably already filed a Community Design patent on the shape no matter what it is.



    The only thing I have read regarding the Xoom having the same suit against it was on FOSSPatents and it was mentioned in the papers of the Samsung case. Do you know if Apple has actually filed the case yet? If not, I wonder if that plan would change since Google will own Motorola outright. Either way, Apple has a right to go after them too since Motorola filed a US case against Apple first.



    If Apple goes after Asus (who hasn't filed anything against Apple AFAIK) for its Transformer, then I will get all Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling!"
  • Reply 150 of 250
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:



    http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/p...ail&returnurl=



    I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?



    I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.



  • Reply 151 of 250
    Apparently the judge issued this ruling based on the drawings in the design patent and not the actual device.



    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-10-1-ban.html



    Quote:

    The court didn’t compare the Galaxy tablet with the actual iPad and instead focused on a design Apple filed with the European Union intellectual property agency in Alicante, Spain, Brueckner-Hofmann said.



    Samsung’s tablet didn’t keep enough distance from the Apple design, the judge said. While the back of the Galaxy is different from Apple’s registered design, the important feature is the front, which is nearly identical, she said.

    The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right,” she said. “Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology.”



  • Reply 152 of 250
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    you just compared an iPad to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That just happened. Think on that.



    Yah, pretty cool eh?
  • Reply 153 of 250
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    A rectangular shape for a tablet has always been obvious. Rounded corners for better ergonomics again obvious. The lack of buttons was only made possible once large touchscreens became economically feasible, again obvious. That's a major reason why an iPad-type success wasn't possible before 2007. Prior to that the only realistic way to control the functions was with buttons, obviously on the bezel or sides. ...



    You're exaggerating I think. Touch screen have been around almost as long as computers and all through the 1990's all mobile devices had them (not capitative touch granted). The multi-touch technology that Apple bought from FingerWorks to use on the iPhone and later iPad was also around for years and not selling well. Anyone could have put these things together to make the multi-touch mobile devices we see today, but it took the vision of someone to see it.



    Once it's done, it's obvious, but anyone could have done it.



    For that matter, the very *day* the iPhone came out, there were a few articles by some of the smarter folks that said how cool this technology would be in a larger form factor. Anyone with vision could have seen the iPad as a possibility right then, but no one actually did anything about it. Apple continued working on it for a couple of years more and eventually released the iPad which supposedly caught everyone flatfooted. Anyone with vision though could have seen it coming years before.
  • Reply 154 of 250
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    If Apple goes after Asus (who hasn't filed anything against Apple AFAIK) for its Transformer, then I will get all Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling!"



    Ditto.
  • Reply 155 of 250
    jrobjrob Posts: 49member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Looks like McDonalds beat McDowells this time around,,,
    Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.



    Hahahahaha!!!! Solipsism FTW! You usually make excellent points and I agree with you nearly all of the time, but this gives you a special place in my heart.



    In dee FACE Samsung, in dee FACE! Right? Right!
  • Reply 156 of 250
    Quote:

    And that's fine. That's something I can agree with. Even as an Android user, I've never liked Samsung specifically because of their copying. It makes no sense to me why anybody would want a copycat look-alike product. Why get something that looks like an iPhone when you could just get the iPhone?



    I think this post unwittingly shows why trade dress litigation and this case in particular gets so divisive. Jetz can't see why someone would buy a look-alike iPhone (which is valid and makes sense to me at least), however, I can also see why someone would. Why? Because a person may like a particular case design, s/he may not want that particular OS. That's all well and good, but we can't always get what we want. Apple invests quite a bit on its industrial design and has value. Just because some consumers like Apple's design but not its software doesn't give other companies the right to use Apple's hard work to make a buck.



    Do I like the community design completely? Nope. But with all this talk about "What if the shoe was on the other foot?", I'm now questioning: Well why didn't these other companies think to file any design patents themselves? My opinion is that these companies care very little about design so they don't invest in R&D (design not tech) in any meaningful way leading to nothing to patent (again design not tech). Waiting to see other people's work for the sake of copying just isn't innovation.
  • Reply 157 of 250
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I just looked it up just to make sure and nope. The original (10.1v) was texturized with an indentation on the back and the Samsung logo. The current, re-designed one (10.1) is smooth with 1/2" lip on the top. Completely different design.



    I OWN a galaxy tab. (the gray one) there is defiantly a texture on it (it looks a bit like burnished metal) It's not a huge texture, but you can feel it.
  • Reply 158 of 250
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I think this post unwittingly shows why trade dress litigation and this case in particular gets so divisive. Jetz can't see why someone would buy a look-alike iPhone (which is valid and makes sense to me at least), however, I can also see why someone would. Why? Because a person may like a particular case design, s/he may not want that particular OS. That's all well and good, but we can't always get what we want. Apple invests quite a bit on its industrial design and has value. Just because some consumers like Apple's design but not its software doesn't give other companies the right to use Apple's hard work to make a buck.



    Do I like the community design completely? Nope. But with all this talk about "What if the shoe was on the other foot?", I'm now questioning: Well why didn't these other companies think to file any design patents themselves? My opinion is that these companies care very little about design so they don't invest in R&D (design not tech) in any meaningful way leading to nothing to patent (again design not tech). Waiting to see other people's work for the sake of copying just isn't innovation.



    A very high number of Apple's Design Patents are granted on simple line drawings for designs they never offered and probably never will. There's not a lot of realistic options that Apple hasn't covered.



    I did a bit of research earlier. I figured Samsung might be able to dump the bezel altogether and avoid Apple's design. Nope Apple has one for that, #000965124-0015. Ok, so how about a raised bezel. No again, Apple's already patented it, #000965124-0009. Hmmm. . . go for a wedge-shaped slate with a tiny bezel. No again. Apple Design Patent 000965124-0010. Well there's gotta be one they didn't cover, right. How about a slightly off-center screen closer to the top with a wider bezel at the bottom for controls? Nope. Apple Design Patent 001120117-0019. Darn it, just use no bezel at all, in fact no buttons at all either except for a single power button on the front, or maybe add three buttons to the side, keeping the screen area uncluttered. No and no, #001222905-0003 and 001222905-0007.



    That's the part of the problem that no one here is understanding. Apple doesn't have to actually build the design to get a Design Patent for it.
  • Reply 159 of 250
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Supreme View Post


    It's funny how years of R&D (iPhone and iPad) translates to "obvious" design. Yeah, it's "obvious" after Apple spent the time and money. What did smartphones and tablets look like before Apple came and basically reinvented them? You can't say a rectangle is obvious design after Apple sells millions of iPads and the competition scraps their designs and copies the iPad. All this talk about giving credit to the component manufacturers is stupid. You don't give credit to the component makers, you give credit to the person/company that puts it all together and creates something out of those components. If it was so obvious Samsung should have brought their tablet to market first. Fact is, these companies are clueless and just want to continue copying Apple instead of spending time and money trying to come up with their own designs.



    Tablet concept 1994: http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI



    Making the device a minimalistic rectangle IS obvious. The problem is that previous to the ipad, the only real touchscreens of that size were the resistive screens. These required a raised bezel, and often secondary buttons as the screen was not sensitive enough to quickly register common tasks.



    This is what they looked like previous to the ipad:



    Full Rez: http://i53.tinypic.com/2mfyedw.jpg



    So take those "pre" ipad designs. Flatten the bezel and make it edge to edge screen (which was done in computers before the iphone/ipad) remove the buttons (all but power and volume) and what are you left with? a rectangle with rounded corners.



    Apple was the first to successfully pair the capacitive screen to a tablet sized device, this is true (or at least the first to make it popular), but does that mean they should "own" the design when it's just a natural evolution of EXISTING tablets, not to mention concepts that predate the ipad and those tablets both by decades?
  • Reply 160 of 250
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post






    That's not a photoframe. That's a computer (notice windows, ports etc.)
Sign In or Register to comment.