Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab Blocked in the EU

Posted by Unknown on from the former-lovers-quarrel dept.

bizwriter writes with a news piece in bnet about the continuing battle between Samsung and Apple. From the article: "In a stunning and painful decision for Samsung, Apple got a German court to issue a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab. According to patent analyst and blogger Florian Mueller, that means Samsung cannot ... sell its tablet in the entire European Union, except for the Netherlands."

30 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Design patents by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    Note that this preliminary injunction is all about a design-related intellectual property right, not about hardware or software patents.

    This might be confusing to readers in the United States, where exclusive rights in industrial design are treated as patents.

    Tagged as ohnoitsflorian

  2. Dont feed the troll by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop quoting Florian Mueller as news.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    1. Re:Dont feed the troll by Nick+Ives · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He has a history of saying controversial things to drive traffic to his weblog. He had a long running feud with PJ and the Groklaw community in general where his analysis into the various SCO cases was consistently shown to be total crap.

      It's also very doubtful that he has any legal qualifications whatsoever. He's just an attention whore trying to scrape a living on Adsense revenue. He deserves pity, but not attention.

      --
      Nick
    2. Re:Dont feed the troll by GSloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Logical? I don't really consider skewing the facts as "logical." [And skewing the facts is the most charitable description I can use for his "truthiness."]

      Re: His arguments against Google and it's dispute with Sun/Oracle about Java. The examples he used of infringing files was just total BS.

      And that's just the first example.

      Every time I read his dreck, I think. Man, what axe does this guy have to grind. Every time, if I take the time to drill down through the layers of crap, I find there really wasn't anything to begin with.

      So, when that happens more than a few times one starts to simply say - "Ah, yeah that troll. I wish someone would check him into a mental institution - or worse."

      Sure, the boy who cried wolf all those times - we was eventually right. But by that point everyone had learned to ignore him. And probably more than a few were overjoyed that he got eaten. [Provided he did, which I assume is the outcome. Pity if it was only his sheep.]

      Moral: it '...shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.'

      -Greg

      Perhaps

  3. Pathetic Apple by loconet · · Score: 4, Informative

    The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:Pathetic Apple by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

      Apple is both competing on trademarks and design innovation. People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point. Apple is willing to innovate even where it will kill current product lines. Microsoft could never do a good tablet because it's worried about the Windows franchise. It could never do a good phone because it needs to look like desktop Windows. Steve Jobs to his credit is fine selling iPads even if they cannibalize MacBook sales. He made iTunes for Windows even though not having iTunes there was a carrot to buy a Mac - he's good with iTunes on Windows as long as it sold iPods. He killed the iPod Mini for the Nano because he felt Solid State was the way forward. Apple is many things, being pathetic not being one i ascribe to it

      Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

      Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work. You may think you want a company run by geeks, but then you get Windows Zune, and Squirting files, and PlaysForSure. Of course Apple will fight for it's designs.

      In a weird way, in our financial society, Apple not using available trademarks may open them up to shareholder lawsuits - not doing all to protect shareholder value and all that. It's a sucky system. Apple is not manipulating it. It is using one of it's many ways to compete. In the courtroom, and in the market.

    2. Re:Pathetic Apple by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is an iPad design from 2004 on a TV show;
      https://plus.google.com/100241261662852079434/posts/12kf2e2BGjn

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    3. Re:Pathetic Apple by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your idea of "design innovation" is a rectangle with round corners then... I ... I feel sorry for you. I really am.

      I know ACs tend to be trolls, but...
      I bring up the iPod, which went from 'it will never work' to 'we must stop Apple or it will control the world', I bring up the iPhone which went from 'it will never work' to 'we need to make sure other companies get the iPhone or else AT&T has an unfair advantage with the iPhone', I bring up the iPad which went from 'it will never work' to 'hey everybody, lets copy tablets' ... and you bring up rounded corners.

      Apple is a design company. Of course its products will look cool. If you think Apple's advantage is solely because of industrial design, then you are missing a much bigger picture. People don't buy an iPad because of rounded corners. People buy it because it works, simply.

      Of the major tech companies, Apple is best at creating things that seem simple to use. They have a simple external model that they expose to people. iOS is a microkernel, but people would never care. I don't know the filesystem for iOS, and I don't need to know. It just works, it's easy to get music, movies, and apps on it. It takes a lot of work and design to make a complicated system simple and consistent to end users. This is why people buy Apple products.

      Microsoft is a pool of geeks. They don't make it easy for end users to use stuff. Take something simple like ejecting a USB device on Windows vs on a Mac. I'm a geek, and on Windows, I still need to think about what drive it is and check the volume. Google is made of geeks, and they're a bit better, because they try to be very clean. But they're still not as good as Apple in making things simple.

  4. Apple statement by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

    Apple is in the right here. Certain companies just want to copy Apple's designs, slap Linux on them, and make money, and the only reason geek communities like Slashdot support it is because they run Linux, even though Slashdot has previously trashed other companies like Microsoft for ripping off people's ideas.

    Just look at what Android phones looked like before and after the iPhone was released in 2007. At first, they looked like Blackberries, and then all the sudden, they all looked like iPhones.

    1. Re:Apple statement by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certain companies just want to copy Apple's designs, slap Linux on them, and make money

      Yes, Apple invented the mobile phone and it's not like Apple took an open-source operating system and used it for the core of their OS, is it?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Apple statement by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty sure the fact that there was Android devices before the iPhone (incidentally Google bought Android in 2005... way before the iPhone) shows that Google isn't just copying their design and slapping Linux on it. Oh, and the base Android setup looks nothing like the base iPhone setup. Incidentally, you might want to look up the LG Prada, which had pictures of it released into the wild ~6 months before the iPhone (AFAICT) and looks quite similar. In fact, it's quite likely Apple copied that phone in making the iPhone (LG claimed Apple did, but never actually filed suit). So, Apple is in the right? I doubt it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Apple statement by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just look at what Android phones looked like before and after the iPhone was released in 2007.

      Well yeah, if you limit your sample to phones which didn't look like an iPhone before the iPhone was released, of course it's going to look like they copied the iPhone. As it turns out LG announced this phone to the public with pics 3 weeks before the iPhone. Black, touchscreen covering nearly the entire front surface, rectangular, rounded corners, and icons arranged in a grid. So if we were to take your argument at face value, LG deserves credit for the current form factor of smartphones, Apple just happened to make the most successful copy, and Apple fans are deliberately ignoring history to spread misguided claims that Apple invented it all and others are copying from Apple.

      The reality is that the current form factor is just the natural evolution of the smartphone due to a variety of factors, none of which has to do with a distinctive design that others are copying from LG (or Apple). You need to maximize screen size to comfortably browse the web on something the size of a phone, so the screen will cover almost the entire front surface. The screen needs to be black to maximize the contrast ratio - if you use a white screen you have to turn off the lights to maximize contrast. Capacitive touchscreens (which had just reached commercial critical mass, and the LG had before the iPhone) were responsive enough that they could replace trackballs or directional navigation keys. Rounded corners prevent it from poking you while in your pocket. And icons in a grid have been around since the Xerox Star IS in 1981; even earlier if you look outside computers. All of this is stuff which would be obvious to someone working in the field, and thus not worthy of patent protection.

  5. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you think "rounded corners on a tablet" is "ripping off Apple's ideas", I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  6. Not about patents by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not about patents. It is about the design of the Galaxy Tab which looks so similar to the iPad. I do not know the correct English term. In Germany it is called Produktmusterschutz (copyright on product pattern/design/the art of appearance). Like you are not allowed to open a fast food restaurant McDonald's without asking the company of that particular name. As they own the brand and the design of the logo and shops etc.

    1. Re:Not about patents by DdJ · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the United States, this is called a "design patent". It's the mechanism by which such things as the shape of the coca cola bottle or the design of a font are protected.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

  7. Blocked in the EU, you say? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was only a couple days ago here on Slashdot I read several comments along the lines of "that sort of crap only happens in your American legal system, not in Europe". So one of two things must be true.

    1) Apple has a legitimate case; or

    2) European law has the same issues as American law.

    European Linux fans need to try to figure out which one it is without having their heads explode.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Re:Why can't Samsung do the same? by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd be a lot more broken up about it except that Han shot first. AFAIK, Apple only started filing suits to block Samsung's hardware sales after Samsung began ITC proceedings to block Apple's hardware sales in the U.S. Even in the best case, trying to block import of a major company's devices via the ITC is a case of mutually assured destruction, and in the worst case, it's throwing the hand grenade soon enough for the enemy to throw it back.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  9. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apple didn't invent the tablet, and Apple has nicked plenty of other peoples' work.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you think "rounded corners on a tablet" is "ripping off Apple's ideas", I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

    And Xerox copied... oh wait, they didn't copy anyone. Oh, the irony.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  11. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by mattack2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If "Apple can't compete on price", why are iPads the same or lower price than "competing" tablets?

  12. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by gmon750 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bullshit. Samsung from day one has done nothing but copy Apple's ecosystem. From icon design, peripherals, GUI interface (phones), etc.

    Before Apple came into the field, everyone had 20+ years to come up with a phone / tablet design to shake the industry. Even with with the few players that gave up quickly, everyone else did NOTHING!

    Now Apple comes in with their iPhone and iPad and SUDDENLY everyone's products now looks like an iPhone and iPad. That is no coincidence at all. When the iPhone was just an introduction back in 2007 before it shipped 6-months later, even Steve Jobs said they "And boy, did we patent it!". Why??? Because NO ONE ELSE had anything even remotely similar to it, and good for them!

    What happened to designing your own stuff??? Even Samsung's CEO publicly admitted having to hold back their Galaxy Tab after the iPad2 introduction so that they could essentially copy its features.

    And yet you fandroid-huggers continue to spin the story that Apple is the one at fault.

    "Who cares if everyone is copying Apple's stuff. Apple should just keep innovating to stay ahead!" - Wrong! Apple can (and should) protect both its current IP and continue the same path of R&D that has made it hugely successful. This does not give copy-shops like Samsung an open-invitation to simply ride on the back of Apple's R&D.

    Slashdot's Android fanboys are just delusional. It's no surprise that the Android OS itself is now in front of the gun barrel with patent and licensing violations, including Google's own internal messages that they knew Android's Java implementation was essentially stolen.

    This is not bad for consumers. This is actually good for them because it will force Samsung to ACTUALLY COME UP WITH ITS OWN STUFF! Who knows? It might even be better!

    Spin your way out of that.

  13. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.

    From wikipedia:

    Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.

    There is a citation to another page (a fool.com page) that I don't see actually gives this same price/share value, however it has been reported in many other places that Apple gave Xerox shares in exchange for the info/right to use the things they invented.

  14. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by Raisey-raison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab is that a vary rare event has occurred - they actually have a competitor producing a product which is as good or better than Apple's product.

  15. Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here by JonathanF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looked like in February this year? It was fatter and it only somewhat looked like what Apple was doing.

    And then... the iPad 2 came. You can tell that Samsung completely freaked out that it would lose to Apple, because it almost immediately said it "would not be outdone" by the iPad's new design:

    http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/24/samsung.says.galaxy.tab.101.thinner.to.beat.ipad/

    Yep. Samsung openly admitted that it was going to change the shape of its tablet because of the iPad 2, just two weeks after it had unveiled its own work. And sure enough, in March, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was suddenly a lot thinner and looked remarkably much more like the iPad 2. I was at the CTIA's spring show, where they first showed off the remake: they even made it a source of pride how quickly they'd changed the look and had a glass case showing the old version and the new one.

    I would personally keep the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on shelves because it's different enough, but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.

    1. Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We have to make our tablet thinner because the iPad 2 is thinner" infringes a design patent? Isn't making the device as thin and light as reasonably possible an obvious goal for any handheld device? That's like saying Intel is stealing ideas from AMD when Intel tries to increase CPU clock speeds to keep up with AMD (and vice versa).

    2. Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would personally keep the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on shelves because it's different enough, but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.

      The Galaxy Tab 10.1 also has a higher res screen than the iPad 2. If the iPad3 or iPad4 comes out with a higher-res screen, are you going to use the same reasoning you just did and claim "there's no question" that Apple wouldn't have increased the resolution "if it weren't for Samsung"?

  16. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by Vancorps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where did you get that bit about the CEO of Samsung? It makes no sense since the majority of functionality found in the Galaxy Tab is just Android which isn't developed by Samsung and kind of refutes your whole point.

    You seem very one-sided and willfully ignorant especially with your interpretation of the whole Android debacle. Did you forget the part about the Sun CEO of the time encouraging Google to use Java for free?

    All in all it matters little, Samsung is big enough to fight this battle and it will shed further light on ridiculous patents that Apple has become famous for using as a shield. I don't blame Apple for that either, they certainly aren't alone in that strategy. The iPad2 was just a logical extension of the existing iPad with features that everyone screamed it should have had to begin with especially since there was no technical reason it didn't but a marketing and sales driven reason but that's just good business on Apple's part since so many people eat it up.

    Samsung has had a great track record of being innovative in the technology sector. They came out with a way better initial offering on the Samsung Apps approach knowing full well Sony was doing the same thing and their product was vastly superior with Sony still trying to play catch up and failing miserably as Sony is only good at the high end.

  17. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly you don't get what's happening. People here on Slashdot, for the most part don't care one way or the other about Apple. They have awesome product design, and you pay a huge premium for their artistic flare (typically 200%.) That's absolutely why artists love Apple.

    The problem here is that Apple is fighting dirty, the IP they claim for the most part is thin at best and utterly bogus in the rest. Yes, they took the tablet that Microsoft and an army of PC makers simply couldn't figure out, and produced a perfect combination of software and hardware with a great form factor for a specific set of purposes, knowing instinctively what to accomplish (with today's technology) and what to avoid.

    That makes them bright, clever, first on the scene with the right formula for success in this market. Kudos... It doesn't mean they could, should, or deserve to own the entire touch-pad market space. Just on principal its offensive to see someone wage a campaign of scape the bottom ethics. For another, look at the iPad 2, notice how much cooler it is that the iPad 1. That because even in their brilliance,Apple saw their competitors come up with cool ideas they missed. Having competition keeps you sharp, makes you honest, because silly BS won't fly in the face of real competition. The saddest part it that this is just morally and socially lazy. Trying to win like this is an admission that you haven't got the chops to compete on your intelligence or talent. That or it means you're such a bloated beast that you win by going around crushing your competition by manipulating legal and social options.

    Apple should applaud the Galaxy, because it make the iPad better. Suck it up Apple and play like you have a pair.

  18. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by Skal+Tura · · Score: 4, Informative

    This http://www.saares.net/verkkokauppa/files/nokia-e7-00.jpg doesn't look like an iPhone :)

    Oh crap! Someone thought of something like iPhone before it came out:
    http://alypuhelin.nettisivu.org/files/2011/05/nokia.jpg

    SUE SUE SUE SUE!
    http://www.brighthand.com/assets/4911.jpg
    It resembles an iPhone!
    How could they allow such devices as this to exist: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/PalmTX.jpg without a myriad of lawsuits!

    So apple took a PDA, wanted 24/7 connectivity, added GPRS to it and noticed it could also be used for calling. (Remember, original iPhones were VERY lacking in phone related features and finishing/polishing)

    Best smartphone i know was pretty much a prototype which slipped into mass production:
    http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-n900.JPG

    Before that there was N810 which actually predates iPhone:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N800

    Or for some really early work:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet

    Clearly Nokia 770 was too early on the market, before technology properly supported what they wanted to do.

    In any case, Apple simply took Mac OS X, stripped it down, took something already built, and added a few hippies to dev team (artists), seriously nothing else.

    Before you start your fandroid bashing, i've actually never used android before, getting my first android pad from customs tomorrow to see how it is, and i actually am receiving tomorrow my new phone: Nokia E7-00. Sure some iPhone could have been cheaper to buy, but i want something i can actually do whatever i want with AND make phone calls, and i want to make damn sure it will not fail on me for the next couple years :)

    Seriously, you need to take a few weeks off from the sunday mass @ your local apple store.

    --
    Pulsed Media Seedboxes
  19. Re:Cant compete, but sue. by shellbeach · · Score: 3, Informative

    What are you talking about? Samsung ripped off the look and feel of the iPad. It's Samsung that can't compete.

    Are people really okay with companies just blatantly ripping off other companies? I thought Slashdot trashed Microsoft for years over that.

    Oh, come on! If Samsung ripped off the look and feel of the iPad, then the iPad ripped off the look and feel of tablet PCs. Take a look a this picture of an HP tablet PC from 2006, and tell me how the iPad didn't copy the rounded rectangle shape you see there! Seriously, I know worshiping Steve Jobs makes you blind, but surely nobody could be that shortsighted ...

    Other than the basic shape, let's see ... The iPad has a single central button, that could be considered unique; does the Samsung have that? Nope. And the two OSes are completely different (you couldn't possibly compare iOS to Honeycomb, surely??)

    Incidentally, if MS was trashed for ripping off Mac OS's look'n'feel back in the day (and I don't remember this ever happening except from Apple fanbois, so plus ca change ...) then Apple should also have been trashed for ripping the original GUI look'n'feel from Xerox ...

    Apple has done some great and innovative things, no question. But they were neither the originators of the GUI concept nor the tablet concept, and to claim otherwise does them no credit. Right now they're in serious danger of being left behind in the innovation stakes. Already iOS is copying features from Android, and looking more as if it's trying to play catchup than leading the field as it used to. It's about time Apple stopped suing and started doing again.