Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Europe (Apple wins injunction)(thinq.co.uk)
thinq.co.uk
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Europe (Apple wins injunction)
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/8/9/samsung-galaxy-tab-101-banned-europe/
23 comments
This is ridiculous. They are suing over a rectangular shape and a certain size / weight?
So I guess only Apple can make a thin tablet. Any other one will be an infringement...
Can Ssamsung sue all other TV makers since they are all rectangular, with a bezel, and is flat? They all look too similar to Samsung TVs!
So I guess only Apple can make a thin tablet. Any other one will be an infringement...
Can Ssamsung sue all other TV makers since they are all rectangular, with a bezel, and is flat? They all look too similar to Samsung TVs!
Are rectangular shape, size and weight the only similarities you can find? Check out the side by sides: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
I'm sure you could hire a creative team to come up with 100 iterations of tablets and icons (as I'm sure Apple did) that would look nothing like an iPad. In light of those 100 the similarities would look more apparent than ever.
I'm sure you could hire a creative team to come up with 100 iterations of tablets and icons (as I'm sure Apple did) that would look nothing like an iPad. In light of those 100 the similarities would look more apparent than ever.
This doesn’t seem to be about the software at all, only the look of the enclosure. (Also: You are linking to an article about phones.)
The assumption is that if Samsung's design heuristic with the iPhone competitor (as linked to) was to copy, then I see no reason why their heuristic would be different on the tablet.
As it is, my point regarding the level of similarity between the Tab and iPad still holds--it's not simply a matter of shape, size, and weight; even if it were, where does the assumption come from that Apple's form factor for the iPad was obvious?
As it is, my point regarding the level of similarity between the Tab and iPad still holds--it's not simply a matter of shape, size, and weight; even if it were, where does the assumption come from that Apple's form factor for the iPad was obvious?
This lawsuit, however, seems to be only about the general shape. It doesn’t make much sense to say that the result of a lawsuit about the shape is justified because of the software or other factors unrelated to the shape.
As for obviousness, let me submit exhibit A, used in 1994: http://de.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Datei:Plan_des_Arboretums.jp...
As for obviousness, let me submit exhibit A, used in 1994: http://de.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Datei:Plan_des_Arboretums.jp...
This doesn't resemble an iPad to me, and even if it did the obscurity of the source nullifies any claim to obviousness. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far and doesn't get at the essence of the claim.
Shrug
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn’t resemble an iPad to me. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn’t resemble an iPad to me. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far.
Let's get one more side by side: http://cl.ly/3h30350I0c0P0W401N3c
The obscure device you found is on the left. iPad which is an actual product, is in the middle. Samsung's Tab is on the right. The iPad and Tab are practically identical.
The left two are only similar in that they are both rectangular. The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all different.
You can't argue a:b :: b:c.
The obscure device you found is on the left. iPad which is an actual product, is in the middle. Samsung's Tab is on the right. The iPad and Tab are practically identical.
The left two are only similar in that they are both rectangular. The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all different.
You can't argue a:b :: b:c.
Ouch. It’s not an obscure device, it’s a freaking PADD. Did you never watch Star Trek?
Anyway, I don’t agree and since we all don’t have any empirical results – only different opinions – we might as well stop here. I only fear that the courts and the politicians who wrote the law also didn’t have any empirical results.
Anyway, I don’t agree and since we all don’t have any empirical results – only different opinions – we might as well stop here. I only fear that the courts and the politicians who wrote the law also didn’t have any empirical results.
Can the JooJoo Pad sue Apple for infringements?
The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all the same.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all the same.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
Damn! They all look the same to me!
A couple blatant problems with your comparison, among others:
* That is not a final-representation of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Tab)
* The back and profile sides are nothing alike, for the Tab and Apple iPad.
* The front sides is only comparable in an obvious "shape," "size," and "materials," but all of these are also represented in previous art and even dozens of lines of monitor fabs.
Maybe you ought to be specific on what is so non-obvious about the iPad, because I have a feeling you are simply have not been made aware or fail to recognize previous art.
Maybe you ought to be specific on what is so non-obvious about the iPad, because I have a feeling you are simply have not been made aware or fail to recognize previous art.
The "non-obvious" and "previous art" criteria are non-issues. This isn't a patent suit. Instead, it's a (very odd, IMHO) EU law that protects products from clones that would confuse consumers.
So I guess the standard here is whether or not someone would reasonably be fooled into thinking a Galaxy Tab was an iPad. Honestly, it seems reasonable to me. The Samsung looks like a clone.
Now, the law is ridiculous in the face of the fact that the devices aren't compatible. Treating the box that the things come in as the defining aspect that needs protection instead of the very different software contained therein is just insane. But apparently it's the law, and frankly it seems to have been applied correctly if I understand it right.
So I guess the standard here is whether or not someone would reasonably be fooled into thinking a Galaxy Tab was an iPad. Honestly, it seems reasonable to me. The Samsung looks like a clone.
Now, the law is ridiculous in the face of the fact that the devices aren't compatible. Treating the box that the things come in as the defining aspect that needs protection instead of the very different software contained therein is just insane. But apparently it's the law, and frankly it seems to have been applied correctly if I understand it right.
Both _ARE_ criteria of the requirements set in "COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs" [1]. IP; patent; potatoes; patatoes. I could have just as easily have said the Product has neither "individual character[istic]" nor is "novel."
If it was thought this injunction was just and applied correctly, I don't think we'd be arguing.
[1] http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/RCD/regulati...
If it was thought this injunction was just and applied correctly, I don't think we'd be arguing.
[1] http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/RCD/regulati...
Clearly indicated by others already, this is about the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and not phones.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is very generic and the interface is pure honeycomb.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is very generic and the interface is pure honeycomb.
That article seems to talk mostly about the phones. When it was first written I recall this image being brought up in response:
http://photos.appleinsider.com/Sam.Apple.001.jpg
And the response to that image was to point out that its dates are completely wrong, and that the very first time the F700 was shown was at CEBIT 2007 (not 2006) in March, after the first appearance of the iPhone.
When did the notion of copying being evil become so mainstream? Copying should be culturally commendable in my opinion.. but maybe that's why I'm not a central planner.
How long have people been whining that Windows copied the Mac or vice versa? It's not a new thing.
Personally, I think there's some reasonable situations in which a company can say "you're trying to copy us to confuse customers and this is a real problem." This isn't one of those situations, though.
Personally, I think there's some reasonable situations in which a company can say "you're trying to copy us to confuse customers and this is a real problem." This isn't one of those situations, though.
How long have people been whining that Windows copied the Mac or vice versa? It's not a new thing.
Calling out copying to cut the copier down to size is one thing... it's about giving credit where credit was due. But suing a company into submission is a whole other bag.
I think Apple is being unethical here. They've made great contributions to tech, but we all are standing on the shoulders of not just giants, but millions of tiny innovators who've contributed their work along the way.
I mean... decent chunks of Apple's software are not just inspired, but are literally copied, as in "cp -r konqueror/src/engine webkit/src".
Calling out copying to cut the copier down to size is one thing... it's about giving credit where credit was due. But suing a company into submission is a whole other bag.
I think Apple is being unethical here. They've made great contributions to tech, but we all are standing on the shoulders of not just giants, but millions of tiny innovators who've contributed their work along the way.
I mean... decent chunks of Apple's software are not just inspired, but are literally copied, as in "cp -r konqueror/src/engine webkit/src".
> "you're trying to copy us to confuse customers and this is a real problem."
Who is this a "problem" for? The multi-national corporation looking for a legal monopoly, or the consumer? Are consumers do dumb they won't notice that their tablet says SAMSUNG instead of APPLE? Doubt it.
Who is this a "problem" for? The multi-national corporation looking for a legal monopoly, or the consumer? Are consumers do dumb they won't notice that their tablet says SAMSUNG instead of APPLE? Doubt it.
> Are consumers do dumb they won't notice that their tablet says SAMSUNG instead of APPLE? Doubt it.
I'm pretty certain that I said this isn't one of those situations.
I'm pretty certain that I said this isn't one of those situations.
Couldn't I theoretically manufacture a bunch of differently designed crappy tablets that barely work, but may have the shape/aesthetics that future ipads may move to? Seems to me this law would be easily exploited. Instead of a patent portfolio, people would come up with product design portfolios...
Given that patents are not at issue here, it's worth noting that software patent reform would not prevent something like this from happening.
Ever develop a modal window? Arrange a timeline of messages according to date received? Arrange icons or shortcuts in a grid-like structure?
Congratulations, you've violated an Apple patent. Other fun tidbits from their collection:
* A mobile device with rounded corners
* Having a picture of a phone as a phone icon
* Having a picture of a gear for a settings icon
* Interactive widgets
Congratulations, you've violated an Apple patent. Other fun tidbits from their collection:
* A mobile device with rounded corners
* Having a picture of a phone as a phone icon
* Having a picture of a gear for a settings icon
* Interactive widgets
Thanks for helping spread massive ignorance about how design patents (etc.) work.
If you make a phone with a distinctive design and patent that design, you list out the many features that comprise that design. You do not have a patent on every single one of those features. If someone copies a few of many features they certainly don't violate your patent. OTOH if they copy almost all of them they almost certainly do.
Where that line is varies and I don't know if Samsung is over the line but it's pretty clear that they are way closer to the line then any other major manufacturer.
And as for who this benefits, I'd suggest that HTC, Motorola and other Android vendors will benefit just as much or moreso then Apple.
If you make a phone with a distinctive design and patent that design, you list out the many features that comprise that design. You do not have a patent on every single one of those features. If someone copies a few of many features they certainly don't violate your patent. OTOH if they copy almost all of them they almost certainly do.
Where that line is varies and I don't know if Samsung is over the line but it's pretty clear that they are way closer to the line then any other major manufacturer.
And as for who this benefits, I'd suggest that HTC, Motorola and other Android vendors will benefit just as much or moreso then Apple.
I suggest you actually go read through Apple's patents before arguing about them. They didn't file a design patent for the entire device. Instead, as you browse through their collection, you see page after page of patents for tiny features like those I listed. A type of modal window, for example:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=dLnlAAAAEBAJ&dq=7...
I literally laughed as I read through some of them, because I've definitely unknowingly violated many. It's impossible not to step on the toes of overly broad software patents.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=dLnlAAAAEBAJ&dq=7...
I literally laughed as I read through some of them, because I've definitely unknowingly violated many. It's impossible not to step on the toes of overly broad software patents.
Your comment is even more impressive because you (and/or Hacker News) violated an Apple patent in your comment above. See Apple's lawsuit against HTC - matching text patterns and turning them into clickable actions is patented by Apple.
Wow, I must have missed that while browsing through them. Excellent find.
As a happy user of HTC Android phones, I've been following the HTC case with some interest. After HTC's setback at the ITC, I decided to take a look at the patents in question and was appalled. Since then, I've been banging this particular drum every time these lawsuits come up because it is a perfect example of exactly how broken everything is.
Almost, but not quite: the patent in question refers to a mobile device. See the huge difference? It matters in patent law.
Here's the patent in question (from the USPTO):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
The word "mobile" does not appear anywhere within it. In fact, Apple's implementation example is a Power Macintosh. If you consider that any sort of mobile device... well, your back is a lot stronger than mine at the very least.
The word "mobile" does not appear anywhere within it. In fact, Apple's implementation example is a Power Macintosh. If you consider that any sort of mobile device... well, your back is a lot stronger than mine at the very least.
I think I read this on an HN thread itself, but browsing through patents in a field that related to you is not a good idea.
I think the time is ripe for doing some civil disobedience about software and design patents.
I wouldn't bet on HTC and Motorola benefiting. Apple is suing them, too. Granted, those suits are mainly in the US, but if lawsuits continue to go well for Apple I'd expect Apple to keep suing.
As a recent Tab 10.1 owner I am not sure there are enough design similarities with the iPad to warrant a ban.
However this may be a wake up call for Samsung - it is hard not to see their products as being influenced by Apple without any uniqueness to balance the experience. Motorola's product experience for example has a certain Motorola culture in it and doesn't feel anything like Apple. Likewise for HTC.
This may not justify Apple suing them - but in my mind being a copy without it's own unique traits is the worst thing that could happen to a brand. (Everyone copies but successful brands retain their uniqueness.)
However this may be a wake up call for Samsung - it is hard not to see their products as being influenced by Apple without any uniqueness to balance the experience. Motorola's product experience for example has a certain Motorola culture in it and doesn't feel anything like Apple. Likewise for HTC.
This may not justify Apple suing them - but in my mind being a copy without it's own unique traits is the worst thing that could happen to a brand. (Everyone copies but successful brands retain their uniqueness.)
I have to agree, but I may be basing it off the first iPad. I was a bit stunned on the plane when I saw how much thinner my tab was than this girl's iPad. I thought they'd be more similar. I was a bit jealous of her monopoly game app though.
Yeah, I kinda like the uniform thinness of the Tab even compared to iPad2. And also the uniqueness that comes with it when traveling - wow there are iPads and Kindles everywhere these days :)
It seems to me that there are only so many ways to design a thin, tablet-like device. How different would Samsung have needed to make its tablet so as not to have been affected by this to begin with?
I don't really know much of the background surrounding "community design rights", but I really think that this is a slippery slope to head down.
Competitors should do battle in the free market - not in the court systems.
Let consumers sort out which is the better product. They have no problems doing this without the aid of an injunction.
This stifling of competition via the court system is just another avenue to stagnate progress within the electronics industry.
I don't really know much of the background surrounding "community design rights", but I really think that this is a slippery slope to head down.
Competitors should do battle in the free market - not in the court systems.
Let consumers sort out which is the better product. They have no problems doing this without the aid of an injunction.
This stifling of competition via the court system is just another avenue to stagnate progress within the electronics industry.
Sadly for Samsung, Apple's injunction is going to severely harm the company's financial outlook. The device is now blocked across Europe, Australia, and Apple is currently attempting to block the import of all Galaxy devices into the US.
It is sad for Samsung that sales of the Tab are being blocked while the court case is settled, but were they really expecting so many sales that this will “severely harm the company's financial outlook?” I don’t see the Tab as a bet-the-company move for Samsung, this is probably more of an embarassment and inconvenience than a fatal blow.
It is sad for Samsung that sales of the Tab are being blocked while the court case is settled, but were they really expecting so many sales that this will “severely harm the company's financial outlook?” I don’t see the Tab as a bet-the-company move for Samsung, this is probably more of an embarassment and inconvenience than a fatal blow.
Yeah, I have a feeling this is going to be worse for Apple than it is for Samsung.
Like you said, Samsung's tablets aren't really selling that well (more were returned last month than sold, I heard), so it's not going to be a significant blow to them, financially.
Now Samsung's failure in the tablet space is going to be big bad Apple's bullying fault, and Samsung will play the role of the martyr. Samsung were failing anyways, but now it's Apple's fault.
The only way Apple wins here is if this prevents other players from imitating them.
Like you said, Samsung's tablets aren't really selling that well (more were returned last month than sold, I heard), so it's not going to be a significant blow to them, financially.
Now Samsung's failure in the tablet space is going to be big bad Apple's bullying fault, and Samsung will play the role of the martyr. Samsung were failing anyways, but now it's Apple's fault.
The only way Apple wins here is if this prevents other players from imitating them.
Those reports weren't about Samsung Tablets. They were about Logitech Revues, and they turned out to be wrong to begin with.
You may be right about that specific report, but the same seems to be true for Samsung's tablets. Nobody are selling tablets, other than Apple.
Pulling data out of thin air, while fun, does not make for an intelligent conversation.
I don't believe that will be the case. People are mostly oblivious about these lawsuits and will continue to buy Apple products.
Isn't the Apple brand worth 154bn or so? If you think about it: That is the total premium that people are willing to pay beyond the actual "value" (i.e. an equivalent product of a competitor) just because they are buying an Apple product.
Isn't the Apple brand worth 154bn or so? If you think about it: That is the total premium that people are willing to pay beyond the actual "value" (i.e. an equivalent product of a competitor) just because they are buying an Apple product.
It's not that simple. In the tablet space, for example, there is no such thing as an equivalent product of a competitor. The "value" of a product is more than it's technical specification, consumers have figured that out.
Apple also wins because business may now avoid the legally-challeged or legally-risky Android devices. Better safe than sorry. Esp. when the iPad is not being sold at a much higher price.
This clearly shows how afraid Apple is of Android devices.
They do not have any shame in denying a developer his application on false grounds and then copying it over a few iterations later. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/40465/apple-allegedly-copies...
They want to copy notification system from Android. At the same time they want to sue Android for copying context menu.
Now they want to sue other devices because they are rectangular in shape. If this is Apple then I will prefer an Apple free world.
They do not have any shame in denying a developer his application on false grounds and then copying it over a few iterations later. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/40465/apple-allegedly-copies...
They want to copy notification system from Android. At the same time they want to sue Android for copying context menu.
Now they want to sue other devices because they are rectangular in shape. If this is Apple then I will prefer an Apple free world.
No it does not. This is a normal part of business. Why people feel the need to associate 'being afraid of' and 'suing someone' is just strange and biased.
It seems Apple now feels entitled to dictate the limits of choice not only within its own ecosystem but also without. This news comes in the same week that I finally try Android coding and find it much less scary than many people maintain and much more logical than iOS in many ways. Maybe this kind of bullying will tip the balance for me.
According to Nielsen's most recent survey, 50% of the people buying Android phones are doing it out of active dislike of Apple as a company. Expect this number to grow as the public sees more products blocked like this.
http://www.buzzom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Android-vs-...
According to Nielsen's most recent survey, 50% of the people buying Android phones are doing it out of active dislike of Apple as a company. Expect this number to grow as the public sees more products blocked like this.
http://www.buzzom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Android-vs-...
I think JooJoo (aka CrunchPad) should sue Apple for design infringements. Clearly it came out before the iPad (JooJoo 2009, iPad 2010). When I see an iPad, I think of the JooJoo pad. It is rectangular; it has a bezel; and it's thin!
Clearly these are all traits only for Apple and an iPad to use. Clearly Apple copied these traits just like how Android copied everything of iPhone.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
sarcastic rant
Clearly these are all traits only for Apple and an iPad to use. Clearly Apple copied these traits just like how Android copied everything of iPhone.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
sarcastic rant
To me this smells of a couple possibilities. This is the first tablet to my knowledge that Apple has gone after in this way, though it seems the scope is wide enough they could have used it against several others in the market. Makes me wonder if this is the first product that Apple is somewhat worried about? Why this one and why now? The added interest is that Samsung, being a major parts supplier for Apple's products is being singled out despite this.
I don't know what it would mean fiscally for Samsung but I would think they have some leverage in the "Well, if you want to be that way about it" department. Apple may stop getting priority consideration for parts orders over other companies. Also Samsung's product range is wide enough they could easily pull the same move against several of Apple's other products like monitors.
I don't know what it would mean fiscally for Samsung but I would think they have some leverage in the "Well, if you want to be that way about it" department. Apple may stop getting priority consideration for parts orders over other companies. Also Samsung's product range is wide enough they could easily pull the same move against several of Apple's other products like monitors.
Samsung already sued Apple in more countries than Apple did to it. Pissing contest and such.
HTC's tablet is also under ITC's investigation, initiated by Apple.
Except the A5 SOC nothing Samsung makes for Apple is unique enough. And TSMC is actively testing mass producing Apple's IC.
BTW: Apple's utility model of essentially a giant iPod touch is ridiculously hilarious.
HTC's tablet is also under ITC's investigation, initiated by Apple.
Except the A5 SOC nothing Samsung makes for Apple is unique enough. And TSMC is actively testing mass producing Apple's IC.
BTW: Apple's utility model of essentially a giant iPod touch is ridiculously hilarious.
Samsung is a very big producer of flash memory. While that isn't unique, if Apple has to fill their large requirements from other suppliers, those suppliers may decide to charge more (or have to charge more given other demands on their production capacity) if they know Apple doesn't have Samsung as an option...
On the other hand Apple is the single biggest buyer of NAND Flash in the world, if Apple goes elsewhere, Samsung's foundry would find it really hard to fill the capacity.() IIRC, since Japan Tsunami everybody's been scrambling securing components but the demand was relatively soft, e.g. Qualcomm ends its recent quarter with 59 days worth of inventory. So now everything is cheap including NAND Flash, as a matter of fact Apple in its financial outlook for Q4(fiscal) stated a buyer's market for multiple key component will positively affect Apple's GM.
http://digitimes.com/print/a20110801PD204.html
http://digitimes.com/print/a20110801PD204.html
my guess is that this suit is specifically because of samsung and apple's business partnerships, and apple will be dropping the suit in exchange for better pricing or availability on some component they need.
When the biggest/most lawyers prevents who moves technology forward and prevents price competition, we all lose.
http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg
I've always though that Samsung borrows heavily from Apple but the Galaxy Tab seems like a real stretch. There is enough of a difference between the two products where a customer shouldn't get confused.
I think Apple is getting angry about its partners taking what they've learned from Apple and using it to compete directly against them. From the article:
The injunction comes as the latest blow in a tit-for-tat legal war between the two companies, who have otherwise enjoyed a solid working relationship: Samsung produces many of the components used in both the iPhone and the iPad, the design of which it stands accused of copying.
This is the same type of dynamic that led to the falling out between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, when Schmidt, as a board member of Apple, used his inside knowledge of iOS to radically change Android's UI and functionality to compete directly against Apple.
Likewise, this reminds us of Steve Jobs showing Bill Gates the Mac GUI, and then finding out that Gates used that knowledge to revamp the Windows UI to directly compete against the Mac.
Apple has a problem in that it seemingly cannot partner with anyone without those companies then turning around and using their knowledge of Apple's software and design to compete directly against them in the same space.
The injunction comes as the latest blow in a tit-for-tat legal war between the two companies, who have otherwise enjoyed a solid working relationship: Samsung produces many of the components used in both the iPhone and the iPad, the design of which it stands accused of copying.
This is the same type of dynamic that led to the falling out between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, when Schmidt, as a board member of Apple, used his inside knowledge of iOS to radically change Android's UI and functionality to compete directly against Apple.
Likewise, this reminds us of Steve Jobs showing Bill Gates the Mac GUI, and then finding out that Gates used that knowledge to revamp the Windows UI to directly compete against the Mac.
Apple has a problem in that it seemingly cannot partner with anyone without those companies then turning around and using their knowledge of Apple's software and design to compete directly against them in the same space.
It is quite the dramatic claim to say Microsoft, Google, or Samsung used insider information to copy Apple when all of the copied products came out well after the Mac, iPhone and iPad were publicly released.
I do agree with you that all of Apple's partners that you have mentioned have continually backstabbed them but I wonder exactly how far Apple can go legally. It seems they could potentially go after anyone with this decision. I'm all for protecting IP but there were tablets before the iPad.
[deleted]
I thought Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both stole their GUI's from Xerox (?)
[deleted]
There is certainly some substance to this argument:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
To me this sounds a bit scary. Is the Galaxy Tab really that similar to the IPad? What about the Xoom? If the Galaxy is banned, why should the Xoom/Asus Transformer be excluded?
No, it's not really that similar. It's gamesmanship from Apple.
People have thought my really chunky viewsonic g-tablet was an ipad: http://www.viewsonic.com/gtablet/ and it is no where close.
People have thought my really chunky viewsonic g-tablet was an ipad: http://www.viewsonic.com/gtablet/ and it is no where close.
People have thought my really chunky viewsonic g-tablet was an ipad
That would suggest that Apple is correct, wouldn't it?
That would suggest that Apple is correct, wouldn't it?
No..ppl believe any tablets are ipads since Apple was first to make the tablet popular.
There are standard shapes and sizes for a lot of technologies.
There are standard shapes and sizes for a lot of technologies.
It would also mean that any tablet would be considered infringing on the design of the iPad.
Only if you think the entire design space has been explored. Sure, there's only so many ways you can package the same commodity components, but I don't think it's impossible to design a tablet that's distinguishable from an iPad from more than a few feet away (or in advertising). Compare an HP TouchPad or Nook Color to the Galaxy Tab models.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who have referred to OSX as "Windows." Might not be the case so much now that Macs are becoming more popular, but I think my point still stands: calling for either tablet to be banned is just as absurd as calling for either OS to be banned.
Your example was the subject of a famous lawsuit as well, so whatever your feelings about the issues, Apple has acted consistently over the years in going after those who they see as copying their products:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
And this famous lawsuit was a famous mistake by Apple. They lost and they generated an enormous amount of ill will at a time when Apple couldn't afford that. Looking back, it is amazing to realize that people felt sympathetic to Microsoft as a victim of Apple's anti-competitive tactics.
No, not at all. Because everyone who sees an eBook reader usually thinks it's a Kindle, despite the fact a Sony, a Kobo, and the original Nook look absolutely nothing like a Kindle. (The Nook Touch has a similar color casing, but has no keyboard. Plus, there is no white model.)
Are you seriously suggesting everyone else in the market should be banned from making tablets because Apple was the first one to make one which is publically recognized?
You may not have said so explicitly, but it is hanging out there, on the broad side of your argument.
You may not have said so explicitly, but it is hanging out there, on the broad side of your argument.
No, and I resent the interpretation.
There are only so many ways to design a unique rectangular phone or tablet, but Samsung tries to make theirs look closer to Apple's than the others.
Samsung's TouchWiz interface, at least on the phones, could easily be mistaken for Apple's interface in iOS as well, whereas HTC and Motorola's phones can't really.
Samsung's TouchWiz interface, at least on the phones, could easily be mistaken for Apple's interface in iOS as well, whereas HTC and Motorola's phones can't really.
This is fucked as usual.
Making a "copy" (or a real 1:1 copy, for that matter) itself doesn't add any value. Creating a design is an effort that is valuable itself (somebody might pay the designer) but copying a finished design or creating not-so-derivative works is an infinitesimally small effort. And no effort means no value. A copy of a design is worthless.
Conversely, Samsung still has to actually manufacture their tablets: that's a undisputable effort spent and that does create value. Sure their tablets might look same-ish (there aren't that many fundamental designs for a tablet computer) but they haven't created any value in their design. At best Apple should just be flattered to see competitors imitating their looks; however, in no sensible world Apple shouldn't have a say what other companies or people can spend their time and effort in.
Design is not property: there's no "intellectual property". Every time we try to treat mental works as property we fail majestetically, but then try to cough it up and cry for even stricter copyright restrictions.
Making a "copy" (or a real 1:1 copy, for that matter) itself doesn't add any value. Creating a design is an effort that is valuable itself (somebody might pay the designer) but copying a finished design or creating not-so-derivative works is an infinitesimally small effort. And no effort means no value. A copy of a design is worthless.
Conversely, Samsung still has to actually manufacture their tablets: that's a undisputable effort spent and that does create value. Sure their tablets might look same-ish (there aren't that many fundamental designs for a tablet computer) but they haven't created any value in their design. At best Apple should just be flattered to see competitors imitating their looks; however, in no sensible world Apple shouldn't have a say what other companies or people can spend their time and effort in.
Design is not property: there's no "intellectual property". Every time we try to treat mental works as property we fail majestetically, but then try to cough it up and cry for even stricter copyright restrictions.
I am waiting for Gruber's justification for this. I am sure he will be able to cook something up as he always does.
On the other hand, I think this is one of those things, which have brought down Apple time and time again in the past, from the pinnacles of success to being competitively obsolete, mainly due to its inability to adapt to the changing market dynamics.
On the other hand, I think this is one of those things, which have brought down Apple time and time again in the past, from the pinnacles of success to being competitively obsolete, mainly due to its inability to adapt to the changing market dynamics.
Good part is that Galaxy Tab might get a bit cheaper in other parts :P
It's by a German judge and it doesn't go for the Netherlands (tomorrow is the case in the Dutch court). Why would a German judge get to say this for the entire EU I wonder though?
Because the goal of the EU is to create a common market. A EU-wide judiciary is consequently necessary to enforce certain laws (especially those that regulate the common market).
Yes, that's the goal. Doesn't really work so far for a lot of things, among which this kind of stuff. So do you know facts about this or was this a guess based on 'united europe' propaganda? Serious question; I am curious! I have never heard of anything like that and the Dutch press is saying that they don't have clue why a German judge ruling would govern the rest of EU and if it does, why not NL.
No guess, that's just how it is. Preliminary injunctions about community designs apply EU wide. Apple asked in their request for the injunction (German, http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for...) to exclude the Netherlands from the injunction. Apple is suing Samsung separatly in the Netherlands.
The press you are reading seems to be exceedingly bad at its job.
The press you are reading seems to be exceedingly bad at its job.
Apparently. Thanks!
If something like that would happen in Russia, surely people would say "I wonder how much did Apply pay to make it happen".
But now, considering USA and Europe... How much did Apple /what/ to make it happen?
P.S. Meanwhile you can still buy one in Russia, and is the ban stays I think those would go really cheap.
But now, considering USA and Europe... How much did Apple /what/ to make it happen?
P.S. Meanwhile you can still buy one in Russia, and is the ban stays I think those would go really cheap.
In 2010, Apple bought $5.7B of components from Samsung. The 2011 estimate is $7.8B. I doubt Samsung would stop selling components to Apple, but are there other manufacturers that could delivery compatible parts for Apple's iOS devices if Samsung did?
A lot of companies exist that make various components. BUT few with the quality and volume of Samsung.
Apple is often supply-side constrained. So they could cut Samsung out the mix, but this just makes Apple more vulnerable to supply shortages.
Furthermore, by selecting their way out of one of the biggest screen, CPU, and memory manufacturers in the world and probably having to fund new factories for smaller manufacturers -- this volume is open up to other companies. The end result is cheaper components for Samsung mobile, HTC, Sony, LG, etc...
Apple is often supply-side constrained. So they could cut Samsung out the mix, but this just makes Apple more vulnerable to supply shortages.
Furthermore, by selecting their way out of one of the biggest screen, CPU, and memory manufacturers in the world and probably having to fund new factories for smaller manufacturers -- this volume is open up to other companies. The end result is cheaper components for Samsung mobile, HTC, Sony, LG, etc...
When you buy an Apple-product, no matter how shiny and polished it seems right there and then, you support this shit. Your newly acquired, polished Apple-product just made your hands dirty.
I'm deeply ambivalent about this. We'd all be better off if tech companies competed with engineers instead of lawyers. Nevertheless, there's just no getting around the fact that the Galaxy Tab is a pretty direct knock-off of the iPad. Are we supposed to get all upset because Samsung's right to ride on Apple's coat-tails has been violated?
No patent or trademark is the culprit but rather the design (as in: look) of the enclosure. Above article does link to this document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-00018160...
That’s called a community design, it’s an EU thing, here is the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design
This article deals a bit more with community designs and especially the concept of the “informed user” that is somewhat central to them: http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1392Newsle...
Here are images of the current iPad: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
Here are images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/spec....
(My personal opinion? It seems absurd to me that you can protect something vague like this. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad seem sufficiently different to me as to not cause consumer confusion.)