Sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab Blocked in the EU

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."

Comments

Design patents

[tepples]

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

Dont feed the troll

[Local ID10T]

Stop quoting Florian Mueller as news.

Pathetic Apple

[loconet]

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.

Re:Pathetic Apple

[MrDoh!]

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

Apple statement

[bonch]

“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.

Re:Apple statement

[whoever57]

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?

Re:Apple statement

[Baloroth]

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.

Re:Apple statement

[Solandri]

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.

Not about patents

[prefec2]

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.

Blocked in the EU, you say?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[mattack2]

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

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Raisey-raison]

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.

Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[JonathanF]

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.

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Dragonslicer]

"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).

Re:Just a reminder: Samsung isn't innocent here

[Solandri]

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"?

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Genda]

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.

Re:Cant compete, but sue.

[Skal Tura]

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.