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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
@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...
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
You really believe he is the old?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/24686...n_germany.html
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.
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.
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.
@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...
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?
I think it's actually going to be a challenging year for Samsung.
I mean, who are they going to copy next year?
You ridicule a member two posts up about trolling and yet, here you are??????? Not sure what is worse, poor math skills or hypocracy?