Samsung Tablet Ban Lifted For Most of EU

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Tablet Ban Lifted For Most of EU

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday August 17, 2011 @09:08PM from the buy-while-you-can dept.

jkcity writes "The ban on sales of Samsung's 10.1 tablet in the EU has been lifted everywhere except Germany. The new ruling is in effect until August 25th while it is decided whether the original court had the power to enforce an EU wide ban. With allegations that submitted evidence was not 100% accurate, the case could be bogged down in the court for years."

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Android tablets by MiG33 · 2011-08-17 21:11 · Score: -1, Troll

The problem with Android tablets is that they really aren't up to par with iPad. They look and feel clumsy, they don't have the same app economy that iPad has and most of all Android devices suffer from fragmentation. I really wish someone would come up with a better device. Microsoft's Courier looked great, so I hope they work on similar concept with Nokia.
1. Re:Android tablets by Canazza · 2011-08-17 21:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Really? I've got a Xoom and it's been awesome. The only app I'm missing so far is Minecraft Pocket Edition, but not even the iPad has that.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
2. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem with Android tablets is that they really aren't up to par with iPad. They look and feel clumsy, they don't have the same app economy that iPad has and most of all Android devices suffer from fragmentation. I really wish someone would come up with a better device. Microsoft's Courier looked great, so I hope they work on similar concept with Nokia.
  Where have I heard that before?
  
  Oh yeah.
  
  Is there any other more natural feeling tablet? It would be much better than the usual ones. Since all the Android devices are quite much clones of each other, I hope someone uses this to their advantage and makes a device like Courier. Or Microsoft should continue their project. It's really interesting anyway.
  
  I'm looking forward to discovering your next top-posting account, dumbass. How many new accounts is that now... 35?
3. Re:Android tablets by Z00L00K · 2011-08-17 21:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And then - explain why Apple really felt the need to attack Samsung using a lawsuit?
  If a product is bad it will just result in the situation where nobody buys it.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
4. Re:Android tablets by DrXym · 2011-08-17 22:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem with Android tablets is that they really aren't up to par with iPad. They look and feel clumsy, they don't have the same app economy that iPad has and most of all Android devices suffer from fragmentation. I really wish someone would come up with a better device. Microsoft's Courier looked great, so I hope they work on similar concept with Nokia.
  Most of the top end Android tablets (i.e. those running Android 3.0) are easily on par with the iPad. The OS is far better thought out than the iPad and multitasking isn't some afterthought. The apps some way to go and from experience writing apps this is probably due to the greater diversity of form factors and the layout models you need to produce to make them work properly.
  I think a larger problem is that their price is on par with the iPad and the iPad is expensive. Once tablet manufacturers start dropping their prices they're going to sell a lot better.
  There is absolutely no reason at all that a 9-10" tablet with capacitive screen, wifi, 16GB flash, 1GB ram, dual core couldn't retail for less than €300 and still make a profit. Stuff like 3G, compass, GPS, even rear facing camera could all be jettisoned if necessary since it's largely superfluous for what most tablets will be used for in the first place.
5. Re:Android tablets by Opportunist · 2011-08-17 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  You put more faith in the customer's ability to tell gem from cap than is warranted.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Android tablets by Ironhandx · 2011-08-17 22:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Indeed.
  If the customer actually had that ability all of the iPads in the world would be collecting dust on a shelf somewhere - unsold.
7. Re:Android tablets by Canazza · 2011-08-17 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  3G is already gone on the base models of both the iPad and Xoom (and probably others).
  GPS is still nice (it means it can still be useful while on the move sans 3G, so long as you've cached your maps beforehand)
  I agree that 2 cameras is a bit overkill, and lugging a tablet about to take pictures is very very awkward and the user-facing camera is all that's really needed (for video chat ofc). I've only used it once or twice, and that was for impromptu baby videos.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
8. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  You know why they don't have that? It's Minecraft Pocket Edition :)
9. Re:Android tablets by marsu_k · 2011-08-17 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  3G is a waste anyway IMHO - I got an Asus Transformer (which is really great, the most fun toy I've had in ages) knowing very well it didn't have 3G. I already carry a smartphone with me, pay for unlimited data, why would I want to pay for unlimited data for another device as well? If your contract prevents tethering, blame your operator. Or switch it even.
  (Having said that, somewhat offtopic, it's really unbelievable that Android still doesn't support Bluetooth DUN - with PDANet it is possible, apparently, to tether for example a computer _to_ an Android phone, but one can't tether an Android tablet to a phone via DUN. And by the looks of it this won't be changed any time soon, so make sure your phone supports Bluetooth PAN if you intend to tether your tablet)
10. Re:Android tablets by ByOhTek · 2011-08-17 23:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Aside from the lack of apps, which is true, I'd have to say, I find my Toshiba Thrive much less clunky than an iPad. Yes it's larger, but it has a higher screen resolution, USB (which works with a hub) that can connect to a keyboard and mouse if I like, I believe it can do the same with bluetooth, DVI, audio, and storage can be expanded both with USB drives and a /SD([XH]C)?/ card.
  I have access to an excellent email client, good web browsers, flash (actually, I'd uninstall it if I could, for security reasons), quite a few excellent games, good calendar apps... This is without resorting to apps that I have to pay for.
  It has also been stable, and high performance.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
11. Re:Android tablets by Dunbal · 2011-08-17 23:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If a product is bad it will just result in the situation where nobody buys it.
  Then why do people buy Apple?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:Android tablets by DJRumpy · 2011-08-17 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  So which is more logical. Some 80 million iPad's sold to date, and none of those 80 million people knew what they were buying?
  
  If the customer actually had that ability all of the iPads in the world would be collecting dust on a shelf somewhere - unsold.
  Or perhaps, it's well designed, with a good app selection, and really is targeted for someone other than /.?
  Occam's razor: "The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."
13. Re:Android tablets by MiG33 · 2011-08-17 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  So? I think the Courier design with two foldable screens is far better than the current tablets. It's just sad that Microsoft didn't understand the potential in it.
14. Re:Android tablets by MiG33 · 2011-08-17 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Because you know, people have different needs. Tethering also is kind of pain in the ass, for both carrying two devices around and it doesn't always work that great. I'm willing to pay little extra to get more comfort. No, in fact I don't even have to pay extra for that. In my country operators are sane and they happily give you two sim cards, so you can use the same plan on both your phone and your tablet.
15. Re:Android tablets by marsu_k · 2011-08-17 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  So you tend be on the move without your phone? I don't. And for me tethering always works great. Perhaps you should have invested in a device that just works ;)
16. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  I don't even disagree with you. I just think that your actions and agenda are despicable.
17. Re:Android tablets by Tsingi · 2011-08-18 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that courier does look cool.
  No warranty on the blue pixels though.
18. Re:Android tablets by Xest · 2011-08-18 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Stuff like 3G, compass, GPS, even rear facing camera could all be jettisoned if necessary since it's largely superfluous for what most tablets will be used for in the first place."
  Would it need to be? The Orange San Francisco aka ZTE Blade has all these things and costs Â£90 off contract and both Orange, and ZTE each still make a profit on that. The handset isn't dual core but does have some decent hardware acceleration. I think you could still keep all this. Does it really cost say Â£150 - Â£200 more just to make a bigger screen, stick in a bigger battery, and a slightly better processor/memory at the manufacturer keeping in mind you could subtract from the original Â£90 the cost of the smaller battery, GSM stuff, and the cell phone sized AMOLED screen which you'd no longer need.
  NetBooks packed much of the same hardware for similarly low prices 3 years ago so you're right, it's definitely doable now.
19. Re:Android tablets by Tsingi · 2011-08-18 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  If a product is bad it will just result in the situation where nobody buys it.
  Then why do people buy Apple?
  Because Apple makes good stuff, and their designs are hot. I have Linux running on a 17" MacBook Pro (My boss gave it to me.) It's a nice puter.
20. Re:Android tablets by Tsingi · 2011-08-18 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think a larger problem is that their price is on par with the iPad and the iPad is expensive. Once tablet manufacturers start dropping their prices they're going to sell a lot bette.
  A tablet is not a serious puter in most scenarios, it's an accessory.
  I'd have a tablet if the price wasn't so outrageous.
21. Re:Android tablets by NickDB · 2011-08-18 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  How about countries that don't have wide spread WiFi?
  Here my mates with a tablet use 3G a lot more than WiFi.
22. Re:Android tablets by Ironhandx · 2011-08-18 01:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you one: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
  Given that Apple products have been found to spark a religious response in those that trumpet their benefits, I believe that Occam's Razor says that they're buying them due to a large delusional crowd movement.
  Lets not forget that even with much proof to the opposite of what they claimed, snake oil salesmen could generally find someone local in a town to help them hawk their wares. These people often weren't in on the take. There is a reason selling odd concoctions was profitable.
23. Re:Android tablets by MiG33 · 2011-08-18 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, I used to carry my phone with me always.. but as I got a bit older I noticed it's much nicer to just leave it home and fully enjoy whatever you're doing outside.
24. Re:Android tablets by perryizgr8 · 2011-08-18 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  in cases where iphones, or ipads are involved, all bets about consumer sanity are off. occam's razor cowers in terror before the rdf!
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
25. Re:Android tablets by perryizgr8 · 2011-08-18 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  that is stupid. osx>>>linux
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
26. Re:Android tablets by Tsingi · 2011-08-18 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  that is stupid. osx>>>linux
  Shuddup! Your stupider.
27. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Given that Apple products have been found to spark a religious response in those that trumpet their benefits
  Also known as cognitive dissonance in modern literature.
  
  Occam's Razor says that they're buying them due to a large delusional crowd movement
  Also known as social facilitation in modern literature.
28. Re:Android tablets by muntis · 2011-08-18 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  How about countries that don't have wide spread WiFi?
  Here my mates with a tablet use 3G a lot more than WiFi.
  Parent already told that he has 3G enabled smartphone. So what stops you from creating Wi-Fi hotspot on phone and connect tablet to it?
29. Re:Android tablets by compro01 · 2011-08-18 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Might look at Archos' 9th generation tablets coming out next month. 8 or 10.1", 16GB flash (or 250GB hard drive), dual core (TI's OMAP4 SoC at 1.5 GHz), GPS, front camera, compass, etc.
  Expected to retail for €256 for the little one or €278 for the big one.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
30. Re:Android tablets by AliasMarlowe · 2011-08-18 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  that is stupid. osx>>>linux
  Indeed, your assertion is quite stupid.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
31. Re:Android tablets by S.O.B. · 2011-08-18 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
  I hate to defend Apple but from a consumer perspective the iPod/iPad/iPhone product lines are well made, the selection of apps in iTunes is quite extensive and their marketing is excellent.
  Your explanation of a "large delusional crowd movement" that crosses cultural, economic and age boundaries seems a less likely explanation for Apple's success. The success of improved Android devices that have eroded Apple's share in the last couple of years further disproves your theory.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
32. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, He will be remembered as historys greatest monster.
33. Re:Android tablets by GooberToo · 2011-08-18 03:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A tablet is not a serious puter in most scenarios, it's an accessory.
  
  Not so. It really depends on what you consider "serious." For most people, simply reading their friend's posts of, "Just drank coffee - mmmm", followed by, "just had my second sip - mmmm - even better - yummy", is about as serious as it gets.
34. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Battery life.
35. Re:Android tablets by intheshelter · 2011-08-18 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Because if they don't defend their IP, even if they don't consider them a threat, then they may forfeit the ability to defend their IP in the future.
36. Re:Android tablets by Ironhandx · 2011-08-18 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  I was using the common understanding of it, and have been for years. That argument works under the common definition of it but doesn't under the full one.
  Also, you should read the wikipedia article I linked. Large delusional crowd movements are one of the few things that can cross cultural, economic, and age boundaries. Very similarly, so can religion.
37. Re:Android tablets by intheshelter · 2011-08-18 05:39 · Score: -1
  
  A religious response? OR, perhaps a coherent response from owners who see the ignorant bullshit posted by those who don't own the Apple product product?
  But kudos for managing to insert Occam's Razor multiple times into your post in an attempt to sound intelligent.
38. Re:Android tablets by scot4875 · 2011-08-18 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  And that's easy to do while you're carrying around your Courier(tm) tablet, right?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
39. Re:Android tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  How many new accounts is that now... 35?.
  It's not a person with multiple accounts, it's a Microsoft marketing team with HBGary style software to manage a bunch of online identities.
  Ever wonder why the responses to any discussion involving Microsoft are identical on every tech site on the internets? They're all reputation-managed, that's why.
Honest Mistake by Spad · 2011-08-17 21:12 · Score: 4, Funny

So they accidentally resized the image of the 10.1 so that it looked identical to the iPad for a side-by-side comparison, it's a mistake anyone could have made on a key page of court-submitted legal documents...
1. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, of course. Since the point was to show how similar the two tablets are, what better way to demonstrate it than to resize them to the same aspect-ratio and remove all brand-logos and other stuff setting them apart. Apple is only trying to make help the court reach the correct and just decision. That is how userfriendly they are, always making it easier.
2. Re:Honest Mistake by qxcv · 2011-08-17 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  Putting the device in its non-default portrait mode and rearranging the icons was mostly the camera man's fault, and the obscuring of the Samsung logo was just poor lighting conditions.
  
  --
  "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
3. Re:Honest Mistake by maxwell+demon · 2011-08-17 21:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But they could have helped seeing the similarity even further by simply using two iPad images. Nobody would have missed the stunning similarity between the devices.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:Honest Mistake by tdc_vga · 2011-08-17 21:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't forget that if they'd simply bothered to show up to the ex-parte hearing, Samsung could have easily informed the court that the camera man had made such a terrible mistake. So, clearly, it's their fault.
5. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:39 · Score: 0
  
  There was no such hearing. Samsung was notified after the ban was ordered
6. Re:Honest Mistake by sjames · 2011-08-17 21:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  OP was being facetious. By definition, Samsung wouldn't have been at the ex-parte hearing!
7. Re:Honest Mistake by makomk · 2011-08-17 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh!
8. Re:Honest Mistake by SecurityTheatre · 2011-08-17 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  ex-parte is latin for excluding one or more parties...
9. Re:Honest Mistake by IrquiM · 2011-08-17 22:42 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry to kill your funny, but the court figured out it couldn't judge for the entire EU, just Germany - that's all.
  
  --
  This is blinging
10. Re:Honest Mistake by robthebloke · 2011-08-17 22:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Oh, so they've added copy and paste then? :p
11. Re:Honest Mistake by mmcuh · 2011-08-17 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  There's an app for that.
12. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  No, actually what happened is, the found out there are serious questions as to the correctness of the evidence given by the complaint, and so they WOULD not judge for the entire EU!
  They are in their full right to do so, and DECIDED that would not, because of these problems with the evidence. So if apple want to ban the Galaxy Tab in the rest of the EU they now have to go to each country. And ofcause risking their documents to be declared fraught and the entire case thrown everywhere AND a huge damages claim from Samsung. With a single court proceedings that would have taken longer and the damages would be smaller...
13. Re:Honest Mistake by Grizzley9 · 2011-08-18 00:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So you're basically calling that judicial system incompetent since they don't look at, you know, the *actual products*? Something tells me that making this kind of a judgement that affects millions of dollars would require a little more scrutiny than looking at a thumbnail pic on a legal sheet. That or you don't know jack about the details of the case and what actually happened and are just slinging soundbites.
14. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  How does it kill his funny? The court's decision doesn't change the fact that Apple's submission had a distorted image of Galaxy Tab.
15. Re:Honest Mistake by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, no.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
16. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  The judge made his decision based on the ACTUAL PRODUCTS.
17. Re:Honest Mistake by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-08-18 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Image on page 39 shows both side by side in their packaging - yeah, they look nothing like each other - like two eggs from a basket.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
18. Re:Honest Mistake by Noughmad · 2011-08-18 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, it produces a farting sound whenever you use it.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
19. Re:Honest Mistake by Asic+Eng · 2011-08-18 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  In the German system a temporary injunction ("einstweilige Verfuegung") is relatively easy to get. There is not much checking of evidence, and there is relatively little chance for the opposing party to intervene before the decision is made. The focus is on speed. If it looks like the plaintiff is not merely wasting time, but genuinely believes they have a case - then the injunction will be granted.
  Nevertheless using a temporary injunction is risky, because it automatically makes the requesting party (Apple in this case) liable for damages caused to the party the injunction is directed at (Samsung in this case). This means if Apple loses their main case - if the court decides the devices are not similar enough or if the design is deemed to be to trivial or if there is prior art or anything else - they will have to pay damages to Samsung. Even if everything they said was in good faith. Samsung does not need to prove that Apple doctored images, or that their suit was without base. If they lose Apple will have to pay.
  That's why the standard of evidence is allowed to be so low: it's essentially deemed not to cause damage to party it's directed at. Either they are found to be in the clear - in which case they get compensated for their loss, or they are found to have violated the requestors rights - in which case the temporary injunction served to keep their damages smaller.
20. Re:Honest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  You are seeing it incorrectly.
21. Re:Honest Mistake by Solandri · 2011-08-18 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, many of the images in the court filing are deceptive if not outright photoshopped.
  
  The Galaxy Tab on page 35 has obviously been squashed in its long dimension, to give it a more iPad-like appearance. The iPad to its left "for comparison" is shown at a more acute angle, making it appear slimmer.
  
  The pic of the rear of the iPad on page 36 (lower left) it looks awfully long for an iPad. Measuring its dimensions in pixels gives you a height of 274 pixels, and a width of 196 to 223 (measured just before the corners start to curve). Average the two widths of the trapezoid and you get average dimensions of 274x209.5 pixels, or a foreshortened aspect ratio of 1.308. The iPad 2's actual dimensions are 241x186 mm, or a 1.295 aspect ratio. Foreshortening normally makes the aspect ratio smaller (when the product is sideways in portrait mode), since it lessens the height while not affecting the average width. But in this picture, the foreshortened aspect ratio is larger than the product's actual aspect ratio! Indicating that the picture has been stretched to make the iPad appear longer like the Galaxy Tab.
  
  The photo you cite on page 39 is taken at an angle, foreshortening the dimension where the two products differ the most, thus making the difference appear smaller than it actually is. The whole document seems to be crafted to deceive, with images manipulated either in post-processing or with camera angles to make the products appear more similar than they actually are.
22. Re:Honest Mistake by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-08-19 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since you still don't understand that this is a preliminary injunction, valid until a real hearing can proceed, you don't even come close to judge any judicial system.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
grrr by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:12 · Score: 1

this is the kind off behavior that makes me really hate apple i haven't bought an apple product since the patent trolling began, just leave android alone OK?
1. Re:grrr by Joce640k · 2011-08-17 21:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yep. We're always being told how Apple is the best quality, best operating system and how they keep prices lower than everybody else by buying up massive amounts of chips for years in advance of production, etc.
  Now they're saying they can't compete in a fair marketplace?
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:grrr by jo_ham · 2011-08-18 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  Who said anything about that? They are competing just fine, but they feel that Samsung has infringed on their design, and they have the right to be able to sue over that perceived infringement (whether they are technically correct or not, it is in their own power to bring the suit).
  This is no different to a content producer coming out with a cartoon mouse called "Ricky" and giving him hemispherical black ears and a pet dog called "Gluto". If Disney sues you over this, does that suddenly mean "they can't compete in a fair marketplace"?
  I'm not certain the lawsuit holds much water (The Tab doesn't really look all that iPad like, unlike the Galaxy S which *does* look a lot like an iPhone), but Apple's right (or anyone's right) to sue for infringement has no relevance to their ability to compete in the market. They actually make and sell a product, unlike a pure "IP company" looking to make cash from other manufacturers.
3. Re:grrr by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no. Apple go protect your patented IP. Google just stop stealing others work without licensing it.
4. Re:grrr by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-18 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  No one is saying that. This is a boxing match, all parties are exchanging blows and we're only in the second round. So why does everyone start crying foul whenever one of the Android camp takes one on the nose ? Why gloating when Samsung asks to block the sale of iPads and iPhones but outrage when Apple retaliates ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
5. Re:grrr by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the "IP" that Apple stole from everyone else in the first place? Steve Jobs even admitted it.
6. Re:grrr by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  That was Samsung retaliating against Apple. Not the other way around. Apple started it, so clearly there isn't outrage when Samsung does it back.
7. Re:grrr by intheshelter · 2011-08-18 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say they are competing just fine. They are the number one smart phone manufacturer and the number one tablet manufacturer. Your comment smacks not so much of ignorance, but rather an intentional false spin on reality.
8. Re:grrr by plankrwf · 2011-08-18 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I am guessing it is because the first one swinging its fists was the fruit company.
  It is like the playing ground at school were everyone is having fun till someone starts throwing punches.
  When one of the bullies get one back, the others will sniccer (allthough in reality, in the schoolyard the kids will remain silent
  being still afraid of the bully. Here is one situation in which 'internet anonimisity' actually improves the behaviour).
  Kind regards,
  Roel
9. Re:grrr by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-18 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's unfair to pin this on Apple, everyone is suing everyone else because all major players realize this is a large part of the future of computing and they need to be contenders. I'm not saying Apple won't pull some dirty tricks, but they very painfully learned back in the early 90's when similar lawsuits were exploding around GUI based systems that being the runner up doesn't pay (they almost went out of business following their unsuccessful battle with Microsoft.) But then again, the other companies won't be holding back either, as has been proven time and again now, and most fighting will be done in the courts through patent litigation because that's how the game is played these days.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
10. Re:grrr by mjwx · 2011-08-18 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. We're always being told how Apple is the best quality, best operating system and how they keep prices lower than everybody else by buying up massive amounts of chips for years in advance of production, etc.
  But Apple's falsified evidence is the best quality of falsified evidence and they've been falsifying it years in advance of actual lawsuits
  
  Now they're saying they can't compete in a fair marketplace?
  This has always been the case.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re:grrr by mjwx · 2011-08-18 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about that?
  Anyone with half a brain, they are perusing temporary injunctions and bans rather then suing Samsung directly.
  
  They are competing just fine, but they feel that Samsung has infringed on their design,
  
  Feelings cant be argued in this case. Apple need evidence and when that evidence didn't exist, they made some up.
  
  Samsung is so confident of their chances, they've slated the Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia on 1 September, the case to decide the injunction is on 29 August.
  
  This is no different to a content producer coming out with a cartoon mouse called "Ricky" and giving him hemispherical black ears and a pet dog called "Gluto".
  Actually it's completely different as Samsung haven't violated any copyrights, which is what you're referring to.
  
  Apple have claimed Samsung has violated some patents, in reality all Apple are doing is trying to prevent their competitor from releasing a product in the same market space.
  
  but Apple's right (or anyone's right) to sue for infringement has no relevance to their ability to compete in the market.
  Actually, it's not a "right" in any definition of the word.
  
  What Apple is doing is suing using falsified evidence, that's a violation of the law. They falsified evidence because they do not have an acutal case, if there is an infringement why did they photoshop the Tab 10.1 in the submitted documents, if there is no infringement why are they suing apart from preventing a competitor from reaching the market. You cant spin this any other way.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
12. Re:grrr by jo_ham · 2011-08-18 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Suddenly the case is all about the one distorted photo (in pages and pages of documents), rather than the physical examination of the products by a judge - it's not like they showed that one image and said "look! see!" - they may be litigious, but they are not stupid.
so good apple tried to ban it! by DMoylan · 2011-08-17 21:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

so good apple tried to ban it!
you can't buy advertising that good!
disclaimer-very happy with the 7" tab
1. Re:so good apple tried to ban it! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-18 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  iPad and iPhone : so good Samsung tried to ban them in order to be able to get a foothold in the market. See how that knife cuts both ways ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
2. Re:so good apple tried to ban it! by LBArrettAnderson · 2011-08-18 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that that was in response to what Apple did, right?
3. Re:so good apple tried to ban it! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-18 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that that was in response to what Apple did, right?
  That's like arguing who threw the first punch in a boxing match. All companies in mobile computing are slugging it out for hundreds of millions in profits per year, no one will be pulling any punches on this one.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
4. Re:so good apple tried to ban it! by LBArrettAnderson · 2011-08-18 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Except the order does matter here, as Samsung wasn't trying to block iDevices "because they were so good that's the only way they could compete." They did it to show how immature Apple was being.
5. Re:so good apple tried to ban it! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-08-18 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, to me it sounds like you are projecting your own feelings onto the matter. Corporations aren't concerned with showing one another how immature they are being. They did it because, to stay with my boxing metaphor, you keep jabbing until you find an opening to land a real punch.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Everywhere except Germany by scsirob · 2011-08-17 21:30 · Score: 1

Europe has treaties that allow any European to buy goods and services in any other country. So all the Germans have to do is buy through a webshop in another country..

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
1. Re:Everywhere except Germany by gnasher719 · 2011-08-17 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  Europe has treaties that allow any European to buy goods and services in any other country. So all the Germans have to do is buy through a webshop in another country..
  I doubt that covers the case where there is an injunction against the sale in one country. With 2 million Euros fine. So you can be sure that Samsung will do everything they can to prevent such sales.
  
  The other problem is of course whether anyone wants a tablet that isn't an iPad. HP seems to have 90% of their tablets still in stores with nobody wanting to buy them.
2. Re:Everywhere except Germany by jean-guy69 · 2011-08-17 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  While HP Touchpad tablets stay on the shelves, Android tablets have captured 20% of the market share.
3. Re:Everywhere except Germany by sjames · 2011-08-17 21:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, there are two entities involved, Samsung Germany and their parent company in Korea. The latest ruling is that the court probably only has jurisdiction over the subsidiary. So, if a German person buys one through a retailer that in turn buys from Samsung Korea, no order is violated.
4. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There are lots of reasons to *not* buy an iPad. The dubious recent behaviour of Apple is just one of them (and I speak as someone who only has Macs at home).
  For example, I bought an EeePad Transformer yesterday.
  I did not need to plug it into a computer capable of running the latest iTunes - I just turned it on and connected it to our wifi network and it updated itself. I did not need to sign up for an account and register my machine with Asus (or Google). I have a proper keyboard and USB ports. I can use a browser that is *not* based on WebKit if I want to (e.g. Opera).
  The HP Touchpad has other issues though - primarily that it's a terrible clone of an iPad with an OS nobody wants except for novelty value. I can't imagine why anyone would want a Blackberry Playbook for much the same reason.
5. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Apotekaren · 2011-08-17 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  If the tablet is bought from a retailer outside of the injunction area, no one can touch them, since the injunction covers SELLING, not buying. Mind you, this injunction covered all of EU except The Netherlands(IIRC), so the Germans would only have to shop from a Dutch webshop to go around it.
  
  --
  She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
6. Re:Everywhere except Germany by caius112 · 2011-08-17 22:09 · Score: 2
  
  I doubt that covers the case where there is an injunction against the sale in one country.
  The current German court decision means that if you are a retailer, you can't sell the Samsung tablet in Germany. It does not limit the free circulation of goods inside the EU, so you can very well buy it from France or Italy or Austria and have it shipped to your German address.
  This freedom is one of the key principles of the European Union.
7. Re:Everywhere except Germany by moronoxyd · 2011-08-17 22:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Funny thing: One of Germany biggest retailers just started selling the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They argue that the injunction is only against Samsung.
8. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  Kudos for sticking to your convictions and not falling for the marketing. It's always so tempting to unify on one vendor (Apple, Microsoft, etc). I guess that increasingly goes for Google as well.
9. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  They are right. Samsung can not sell to shops in Germany. Shops can sell what they already have.
10. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Opportunist · 2011-08-17 22:30 · Score: 2
  
  Where did you get that idea from? Free trade of goods and services is only good if it's to the benefit of the corporations, not the customer!
  Anyone who has not figured out by now that the sole purpose of the EU is to strengthen the economy and screw the population?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Opportunist · 2011-08-17 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...if you find a company who's willing to take the risk of doing that.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Kudos for sticking to your convictions and not falling for the marketing. It's always so tempting to unify on one vendor (Apple, Microsoft, etc). I guess that increasingly goes for Google as well.
  The 90s called. They want their Kudos back.
13. Re:Everywhere except Germany by caius112 · 2011-08-17 22:45 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a risk. You can't get sued for it. For example, video games are heavily censored in Germany, so everyone just imports them. Zero risk involved.
14. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  The 90s called. They want their Kudos back.
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.
15. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. the injunction says that Samsung Germany is not allowed to import or sell the device. A retailer that buys from Samsung Korea is not affected by the injunction, and any device that has already been purchased from Samsung Germany before the injunction can still be sold. All the big retailers still sell the device.
16. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  All that germans have to do is go to their favorite electronics retailer and buy the thing. The injunction only says that the german subsidiary of Samsung cannot import or sell the device. Anyone else (including other divisions of Samsung) can still legally import and sell the device without any kind of issues, so the whole thing is really not as big as it sounds. And even for this limited scope, there's a heated debate whether the court actually had the authority to issue the injunction, since according the legal procedures, you have to sue the company at the court where they are registered, you can't just go to any random court (as Apple did in this case)
17. Re:Everywhere except Germany by gl4ss · 2011-08-18 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  "In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce."
  among the most important reasons why I thought that it was a good idea for Finland to join EU was that we could then get more free trade, which we did. basically that's buying stuff from europe without paying excessive customs, we pay still a fair deal of customs/tax on imported used cars but not nearly as much as we did before.
  but the IP rights used in this case are ridiculous - the lawyers involved are _highly_ paid so what the fuck can't they do any prior art checking, checking of actual products or anything? they should be industry experts too, not some guys who think that copyright+trademarking a design shown 32423 times in concepts and even practice before is ok - and they should have at least read the news to have seen some actual pics of the devices in question. it's ridiculous, if apple got what it wanted they'd have a potential 25 years monopoly on about a4 sized portable touchscreens.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
18. Re:Everywhere except Germany by KingMotley · 2011-08-18 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Lol, and you pick Opera as a company you want to use because Apple went to the courts instead of trying to compete? ROFL. Such a short memory you have.
19. Re:Everywhere except Germany by butchersong · 2011-08-18 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I have to disagree with you about the HP Touchpad. I've used all 3 operating systems, phones and tablets, and much much prefer WebOS to Android or IOS. The first gen hardware leaves something to be desired but on a phone or tablet WebOS kills the other two from a user (and developer from what I'm hearing) perspective.
20. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Nerzhul · 2011-08-18 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  This is not true. Laws differ throughout the EU. A good may be legal in one country but not in another. For example you're allowed to buy marihuana in the Netherlands, but not in Germany.
21. Re:Everywhere except Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Way to completely miss the point.
Security of the Android OS? by bejiitas_wrath · 2011-08-17 21:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How does the security of the Android operating system compare to a more open operating system distribution like Debian or Fedora? Are they checking the applications that are added to ensure they do not bring in any security holes?
Just wondering. I am wanting to purchase a new or second hand `phone and I am wondering whether the Android thing is worth it or should I get something running Symbian.

--
liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
1. Re:Security of the Android OS? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't trust Apple's or Google's filtering process (hint: Google doesn't undergo any such pre-submission process). On the PC I usually perform limited disassembly and PE-header inspection on non-signed, non-publisher executables. One benefit of Dalvik is that it uses a higher level virtual instruction set, so that reverse engineering apps is a lot quicker than on native platforms. It also helps that most apps are minuscule in size, smaller than a few-thousand LoC. Compiled apps retain object file information, so disassembly/decompilation won't produce a giant blob of unorganized (asm) code.
2. Re:Security of the Android OS? by RobbieThe1st · 2011-08-18 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  You've only one choice: The Nokia N900. It's cheap enough used, fast enough for most things(including slashdot browsing), and runs a full Linux-based OS, including X11. Which means you can easily run a stock Debian or Ubuntu chroot on top of the native apps.
Apple seeks to ban all Galaxy problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:40 · Score: 0

According to the Webwereld. Apple is trying to block all products of the "Galaxy" series. So not only the 10.1 pad.
Possible victims are Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab 7 inch, ACE, Gio, Mini, Apollo, ...
Article here (in Dutch)
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107630/apple--gehele-galaxy-lijn-moet-uit-de-schappen.html
1. Re:Apple seeks to ban all Galaxy problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  Oh no! What about Galaxy Caramel and Galaxy Hazlenut?
2. Re:Apple seeks to ban all Galaxy problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  They'll just be renamed to Dove
Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 21:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

The following article has some very interesting information about Community Designs, which were used for getting the original injunction.
Community designs are basically unreviewed sketches of products which can be used to silently get an injunction for your competitors product.
No checks are done for obviousness, nor for prior art.
1. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's just a Design Patent, or a Registered Design to our UK readers. You can get exactly the same kind of registration, in the same way, at the USPTO.
  Regardless the article is factually incorrect on several points, not least is assertion that Apple somehow got an automatic injunction for showing up with the paperwork. The injunction was granted on an inspection of the actual devices by the court, which evaluated whether the design was likely to have been infringed.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  In fact they hold the same sort of registration at the USPTO:
  http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/10/apples-patented-the-tablet-mac/
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  Please take a look at the nature of the "designs" before even trying to defend this. Samsung's devices have been found to infringe on sketches that predate the iPad by six years.
  And about the filing date: "Apple filed a grand total of 97 Community Designs that day". There is not a single smartphone on the market that does not match at least one of the sketches shown. Apple could monopolize the entire market based on one day's worth of paperwork. How is that a good thing?
4. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  A design patent is like a trademark, infringement is a complex matter of judgement that will be settled by the court. It's not some magical legal instrument of overwhelming power. I'm sure Samsung has its own fair share of community design patents lodged in the EC.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
5. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Mod this up. That has to be the biggest WTF I have ever seen. What idiots drafted this legislation (and from which ivory tower), and how can they be held accountable? No review until after the injunction is granted? 25-year monopolies based on a sketch?
  The only way this failfest can be corrected is if the punitive damages for wrongful filing equal the damage done, i.e. if Samsung wins on appeal, Apple's products should be barred from the EU for as long as the duration of the trial.
6. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  To put that in perspective, In the last 12 months alone, Samsung's lodged over 400 applications in the same register, including batches of dozens of designs for tablets and swathes of material claiming ownership of the appearance of their peculiarly iOS-esque flavour of Android. It's standard procedure in that business.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
7. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, so this exists in the US too then.
  But I still don't get it. If you look at the sketches for the ipad, it's basically a rectangle with rounded edges and a border. How can you get any kind of patent for that?
  Also, the article stated that the injunction was granted because the galaxy tab does look like the pictured device, and apparently said Community Designs are valid automatically, without ever being examined. In slashdot terms:
  1. Submit a couple thousand Community Design patents
  2. Get injunction against anybody who makes something that looks like what you pictured.
  3. No more profit for the guy who the injunction was filed against, at least until he managed to proof that the Community Design was bogus.
  (I'm assuming that No more profit for the other guy somehow is good for you here).
8. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Sockatume · 2011-08-18 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  The article is wrong, frankly. Design patents don't work the way it describes (they've got more in common with trademarks) and the injunction was not granted on the basis it asserts.
  My main point is that they're not - as the article implies - some obscure legal instrument dug up to attack Samsung. They're part of the design landscape that Samsung's lawyers will be intimately familiar with and well-equipped to defend against.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
9. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by olau · 2011-08-18 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yet Samsung's lawyers were not heard, and it seems most people who've seen the actual products disagree with the judge that a trademark was violated. Is that not a problem?
  It seems to me design patents are intended to prevent cheap copies of Gucci bags, but Apple has somehow dug up this obscure legal instrument and so far successfully attacked Samsung with it.
10. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't appear to be complex matter, since the court needed only a few hours to grant a continent-wide injunction, and didn't even need Samsung to reach its decision.
11. Re:Community designs as were use for the injuntion by exomondo · 2011-08-18 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Someone mentioned western digital a while ago and until i got an apple tv i hadn't noticed it but there is a striking similarity in the design between the new apple tv and the somewhat older western digital elements external hard drive. Yes they are a coupling of basic design elements and i don't think there should be any 'protection' for such things, but it certainly looks hypocritical of apple to go after samsung when they've done a much more blatant copy of another company's design.
They're still trying to ban the entire galaxy line by QuasiSteve · 2011-08-17 22:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple is actually seeking a ban on all of the Galaxy products, including the original tab and the Galaxy S2 smartphone, in The Netherlands.
This is not just a ban from Samsung importing them. It's a ban on retailers to sell them (i.e. they need to recall them) and distributors distributing them (to other countries). So that 'good advertising' would only last for as long as they're still allowed to sell it - which might be until mid October if they're unlucky.
In addition Apple demand that in Samsung's recall notice to distributors and retailers, they make note that the product infringes on Apple IP.
It seems very much a "Let's demand the ridiculous - any toning down by the judge will then fall in our favor" type move, but I'm sure they're actually quite serious.
Source: http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107630/apple--gehele-galaxy-lijn-moet-uit-de-schappen.html
Apple isn't scoring any brownie points with these demands, that's for sure. One major online news site's (nu.nl) comments are replete with negative comments toward Apple, even from avid Apple fans, and they're not doing much better over at the #1 tech news site for NL/BE (tweakers.net).
Not that I think it'll impact Apple's bottom line in any way. ha.
I have no doubt that they would extend this to the EU.
Lifedrive anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 22:18 · Score: 1

Rectangular, rounded corners... wait a minute!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/LifeDrive.jpg
Let's go, HP!
1. Re:Lifedrive anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  I was think on something more like a PDA 600 without lid.
  Amstrad was aiming for a pad with that black rectangle with rounded corners look while Apple was still developing the Apple Newton.
BYou fai7 it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-17 23:14 · Score: -1

From a technical things I still to download The Best. Individuals problem5 that I've surprise to the Polite to bring forwards we must shitheads. *BSD don't want to feel
1. Re:BYou fai7 it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  goatse fail...how did you not realize it puts the domain in the post after the link? you retard.
No contest by crossword.bob · 2011-08-18 00:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Samsung could win this case easily. All they need to do is prove that the iPad's touchscreen works.
Disgusting by Yamioni · 2011-08-18 00:26 · Score: 1, Troll

[...] the case could be bogged down in the count for years.
Well, I guess that's better than being down on the Count for years. I hear his dick tastes like cocoa puffs.

--
Cool post bro, highfive \o
1. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  I guess that explains why your breath smells of Cocoa Puffs too.
Why judges don't look at the products themselfs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

For a usual computer user, it makes perfect sense to just try out the two products and arrive at a conclusion whether they are similar or not. Why do Judges rely on printed testimony? But if you think about what a Judge really is responsible for, paper makes more sense than actual devices:
Let's look at an imperfect analogy: For a normal computer user, it makes perfect sense just to use a binary program --- it just works. But for a programmer or a systems administrator, having GPL and getting the source makes a big difference. Why? Because the programmer and the systems administrator are responsible for more than just running the program. They may need to fix bugs, add features, install the program on other machines; port it to other hardware etc. You can do this if you have the source and the GPL. With just the binary, you are often out-of-luck.
A similar argument applies to judges: They are not only responsible to get a personal opinion "I think the products are similar". They need to be able to justify, explain and analyze the details of this decision in the light of the arguments of each party. And here, testimony on paper has big advantages: You can easily copy the testimony (publicize and review it outside the court). The opposing party may check what the judge was actually looking at. The testimony doesn't change after the court session. You can easily store hundreds of pages of such testimony in folders etc.
Let's illustrate this with some hypothetical examples:
Apple claims that Android is identical to the iPhone. Apple and HTC provide two phones to let the judge try it out. The judge swears that they are **exactly** identical (not similar but identical). What happened?
Prior to the trial Apple ported the Android to run on the iPhone and installed both systems. So, when the judge compared the two phones, they indeed acted identically --- running Android. At this point of investigation, this was all that mattered. At the end of the test, an Apple engineer remotely instructs the modified phone to remove the Android install and thus remove any traces of cheating. (Of course, this thought example is exaggerated. But it highlights the point that inspecting actual products gives each party uncontrollable powers to game the cards).
On printed testimony, it is open what the judge sees: You can distribute copies of all documents to all parties --- and any cases of tampering can be brought out to the open --- just as it happened in this case. Thus for the purpose of a court case where each piece of evidence may need to be challenged and investigated, paper is far superior to actual products.
1. Re:Why judges don't look at the products themselfs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Your thought example lacks a proper comparison between your examples. With paper you allow everyone to check what the others are seeing, but with the actual hardware you do not.
  How about the judge just goes down to their local bestbuy and buy an ipad and a Samsung 10.1 to compare on their own time. OR the judge and the lawyers all demo the units in the open together, there would be no swaping of OS's at that point as the other lawyers would see what is going on.
  These court cases are a joke, i'm surprised car companies aren't sueing each other for having 4 wheels and driving on roads!!
2. Re:Why judges don't look at the products themselfs by lee1026 · 2011-08-18 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why can't you just tape the demo to the judge? Afterwards, just give the recording to everyone.
3. Re:Why judges don't look at the products themselfs by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-08-18 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Apple could submit the videos as evidence. I'm sure they wouldn't doctor anything--after all, they're not like Microsoft...
Re:They're still trying to ban the entire galaxy l by gad_zuki! · 2011-08-18 02:46 · Score: 1

>Not that I think it'll impact Apple's bottom line in any way. ha.
Half of Apple's income is from the iPhone. The Galaxy S phone is arguably cutting into the iPhone marketshare, as its one of the better Android phones out there and is a little cheaper and can be had on multiple carriers. I have a Vibrant on T-mobile and its a really neat piece of technology, so I can see why Apple is afraid of it.
Apple's take, imho, is that they'red damned if they don't do a patent attack and damned if they do, so why not? They don't give two shits about upsetting their loudmouth superfans nor about setting off a patent war that could potentially cripple the industry. They just need to worry about next quarters earning report.
I suspect these desperate measures are signs that Apple's massive growth is beginning to stagnate. Everyone who wants an iPhone probably has one and if Android continues to move in, then you won't have the growth you had in the past.
Apple want to kill samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-18 03:39 · Score: 0

http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107630/apple--gehele-galaxy-lijn-moet-uit-de-schappen.html
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwebwereld.nl%2Fnieuws%2F107630%2Fapple--gehele-galaxy-lijn-moet-uit-de-schappen.html
Which is the whole point. by Truekaiser · 2011-08-18 04:30 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't care if it wins or looses, they know they could wait out any competitor legally in this situation so the BEST result apple wants is a long drawn out legal battle where it's on again off again ruled that the competing product is either not sold or sold in too short of a supply.
They are doing this because they know that left alone the galaxy tab will eat alive their cash cow that has at the 'least' a 100% market up of what it's actually worth with a lower price and better features while not being locked down in job's pre-school garden.
Maybe jobs will eventually learn that the best way to get your tech adopted by the masses is to allow the porn industry in, it seems to have worked for vhs, dvd, blue-ray, streaming, and the internet in general.