German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

Apple by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Driving innovation in the field of shapes forward.

Re:Apple by Reverand+Dave · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 0

Shiny shapes with shiny pictures and don't forget that they are shiny.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Apple by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Obviously the judge didn't bother to read the evidence or he would have realized that the whole case is just Apple trying to patent rectangles.
Re:Apple by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Its a ROUNDED rectangle.
I wrote the innovation in allcaps so you wouldn't miss it.
Re:Apple by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Well it doesn't really matter because it's a well known fact that German judges make their decisions by drinking a few liters of beer and then flipping a coin.
I mean, it's not like anyone who actually considered the evidence and listened to the arguments would find for Apple.
Re:Apple by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:35 · Score: 1

I am still trying to work out what happened in the actual court.
"I think these two pictures look the same"
"Yeah, I think so too"
"Agreed?"
"Court is adjourned"
Surely you hardly need more than a few minutes.
Re:Apple by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2011-09-09 06:37 · Score: 5, Funny

The judge probably had the decision written on an iPad.

"I find in favor of Sam^H^H^H...what...uh...oh, here it is: Apple! I could have sworn I wrote something different, earlier."
Re:Apple by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:41 · Score: 1

That was only the preliminary injunction.

"Still the same picture?"
"Yeah..."
"Injunction confirmed."

What else can you hope for in a place where a "late night before the law exam" refers to a party in the university pub? right?
Re:Apple by DurendalMac · 2011-09-09 06:51 · Score: 2

More like Apple: Finding ways to squeeze licensing fees out of Android handset/tablet makers, much like the rest of the industry.
Re:Apple by blair1q · 2011-09-09 06:57 · Score: 1

Did they say anything about how it feels? Maybe if they'd ignored feel in the first place they'd have put Microsoft out of business in 1994.
Re:Apple by SerpentMage · 2011-09-09 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have an Acer Iconia tablet and my wife has the early Samsung 7" tablets. The reality is that the Samsung tablets are a ripoff of the Apple tablets. Look at the ports, Oh wait there are none (unlike most Android tablets). What about the connector? Oh wait it looks just like the Apple (even though most android tablets are not like that). The reality is that Samsung is ripping off the design of Apple...

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:07 · Score: 0

The "evidence" was probably handed to him by an Apple executive in the form of a paper bag full of money.
Re:Apple by D-Fly · 2011-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1

While there is probably some truth to the notion that Samsung took the best external design elements of the Ipad for the Tab, it's sort of ludicrous to ban their product because of it. The underlying principle of the law in the US as I understand it is that Samsung can't sell something that confuses buyers into thinking that they are actually buying an Ipad. I imagine that the basis of the German law is similar.
I am quite surprised that Apple actually won this case, and dare I say that I think Apple is probably surprised as well? I think that they do these design lawsuits mostly as pushback against competitors, kind of policing the boundaries, scaring the Samsungs and Sonys of the world from copying too much. I don't think they actually expect to win injunctions though.

--
\
Re:Apple by kelemvor4 · 2011-09-09 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except that the real reality is that Apple ripped off the design of many tablets that came before it.... Damn those pesky facts, they always get in the way of a good argument!
Re:Apple by idontgno · 2011-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1

Damn those pesky facts, they always get in the way of a good argument!
That's OK, at least German court has a proper lack of respect for facts. They don't let facts push them around, no siree.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Apple by aiken_d · 2011-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1

That's generally what happens to me-too players in a fiercely competitive new market, at least if the first movers are aggressive with IP. I'm not defending it, just saying it's how the world works.

--
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Re:Apple by gstoddart · 2011-09-09 08:37 · Score: 1

The underlying principle of the law in the US as
Yes, but this is Germany.
What is the underlying principle of the law there?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Apple by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 08:38 · Score: 1

The underlying principle of the law in the US as I understand it is that Samsung can't sell something that confuses buyers into thinking that they are actually buying an Ipad.
No, german law (and that means the rest of the world except of the US; obviously) is not similar.
If you "invent" something and give it a "unique" look and feel, I can not just copy "your" look and feel.
As a matter of fact I have not much clue about this law suit (I have more important stuff to do). But it embraces how less clue most /. posters have about simple matters of "law".
After all law is only a computer program interpreted ba a judge. Very simple indeed.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:38 · Score: 0

There's no way that would work in Germany. The tax rate on bribes is so high that it's not worth it.
Re:Apple by leenks · 2011-09-09 08:43 · Score: 1

Such as?
Re:Apple by Pieroxy · 2011-09-09 09:26 · Score: 1

Don't even ask. They'll point out an old tablet with matte and grainy black borders, rounded corners and plenty of buttons all over and then claim it is obviously similar to the iPäd. I did it once...

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Apple by kelemvor4 · 2011-09-09 09:34 · Score: 1

All I know is I'm heading down to the patent office to patent the four door car tomorrow. It's sure to hold up in Germany!
Re:Apple by grmoc · 2011-09-09 09:38 · Score: 1

Damn, that is one of the funniest comments I've seen in a LONG time!
Re:Apple by Aighearach · 2011-09-09 09:40 · Score: 1

Yes, but this is Germany.
What is the underlying principle of the law there?
Victory!
Re:Apple by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 09:42 · Score: 1

After all law is only a computer program interpreted ba a judge. Very simple indeed.
You missed a crucial fact: law is written in a language which is more painful than JavaScript, PHP and VB6 combined. In some areas, it's underspecified, so the interpreter has to second-guess (and thus you get implementation-defined behavior). Finally, the program itself is not written with best coding practices in mind, and contains chunks of code decades, and sometimes centuries, old that were never refactored, and tend to bit rot.
Re:Apple by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 09:43 · Score: 1

Only if it's got rounded corners - don't forget to add that to the claims.
Be sure to check if Apple didn't patent it already, though.
Re:Apple by Aighearach · 2011-09-09 09:43 · Score: 1

But it embraces how less clue most /. posters have about simple matters of "law".
daaa-naaaa-NAAAA Please hang up and try your insult again.

After all law is only a computer program interpreted ba a judge. Very simple indeed.
lololol
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 10:10 · Score: 0

Perhaps Samsung should have countered the bribe that Apple paid to the German courts.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:47 · Score: 0

Yes, yes. Anyone who likes anything that you don't is an idiot, we get it.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 12:29 · Score: 0

There are no ports because standard ports don't fit into these kinds of super-thin tablets. And, in any case, even if it were a 1-1 copy, so what? Should Apple have exclusive rights for rectangular tablets with no ports? What possible purpose would that serve?
Furthermore, why should Apple then get away with their own rip-offs? Most of iOS and most of their designs have been "ripped off" from other companies, starting with Objective-C, Xcode, many of their GUI elements, etc. If Apple can block Samsung on something as trivial as this, then dozens of companies should be able to block Apple from selling a single iPad 2.
Re:Apple by SnowZero · 2011-09-09 16:58 · Score: 1

Digital picture frame from 2006:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
It looks exactly like an iPad, and exactly like the "electronic device" in Apple's design patent.
Now you'll probably say "but that's not a tablet!". I would reply that we're talking about design here, and confusingly similar looks, not operation. In fact the behavior of the device is explicitly called out as not being part of the design patent Apple filed [1].
Furthermore if how you use something matters, rather than trade dress, we can just call the Galaxy Tab a "digital picture frame and music player", and close the case in Samsung's favor.
[1] Patent title: "Electronic Device"
Primary Claim: "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."
Label for only picture showing someone using the device: "FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram of the use of the electronic device thereof the broken lines being shown for illustrative puposes only and form no part of the claimed design. "
IOW, there is nothing whatsoever in this patent that is inconsistent with a digital picture frame and music player, and they are not claiming anything in the patent that is specific to a tablet.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D504,889.PN.&OS=PN/D504,889&RS=PN/D504,889
Re:Apple by Pieroxy · 2011-09-09 21:34 · Score: 1

So you found a device that match the first claim of the Apple patent. Great. Now you'll need to find a device that match ALL claims of Apple's patent. Right. That's the Galaxy S and Tab.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Apple by julesh · 2011-09-09 22:02 · Score: 1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001
Any features not in that drawing aren't protected. It's a *very* simple drawing.
Re:Apple by aliquis · 2011-09-09 22:50 · Score: 1

Sounds better than in the US there the part who got the most money win by walk over-
Anyhow, every time you buy an iPhone Apple kills an innovation.
Re:Apple by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 23:45 · Score: 1

Well, most german law "books" are pretty clear written.
No idea about other countries. However you are right that they get "refactored" to rarely ;D

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Apple by cpghost · 2011-09-10 07:06 · Score: 1

Its a ROUNDED rectangle.
Not only that, it's a rounded iRectangle(tm)

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:Apple by JohnBailey · 2011-09-10 07:12 · Score: 1

So you found a device that match the first claim of the Apple patent. Great. Now you'll need to find a device that match ALL claims of Apple's patent. Right. That's the Galaxy S and Tab.
Which would be a great comeback.. If this were a patent case.

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Re:Apple by SnowZero · 2011-09-14 20:26 · Score: 1

So you found a device that match the first claim of the Apple patent.
Thanks. In fact it matches the only claim, because it is a design patent and there is only one claim.

Great. Now you'll need to find a device that match ALL claims of Apple's patent.
Ok. All (one) claim(s) are matched by my example. You've also unambiguously revealed that you didn't bother to read the patent.

That's the Galaxy S and Tab.
...and the Samsung digital picture frame, most modern TVs, and a lot of other things.

I don't understand by Synesthes · 2011-09-09 06:22 · Score: 1

How does the court in Germany have jurisdiction over all of Europe? Can someone explain this?

Re:I don't understand by ZigZagJoe · 2011-09-09 06:24 · Score: 3, Informative

It doesn't; they're banning the german branch from exporting them to the rest of europe.
Re:I don't understand by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:24 · Score: 1

", it has banned Samsung Germany from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 anywhere in Europe"
I think its just Samsung Germany, other importers/whatever from Europe can still sell it.
Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:25 · Score: 0

Its not preventing OTHER divisions of Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab in Europe, just Samsung Germany, they have jurisdiction over Samsung Germany because Samsung Germany is located in... GERMANY.
Re:I don't understand by sitkill · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1

It's not a ban of the Samsung 10.1 tablet from all of Europe, just from Samsung Germany Division from selling it in other parts of Europe. Considering Samsung has divisions in most countries, this is a bit of a moot point.

In addition, Samsung Germany may not sell the device in any other European Union country, although other Samsung divisions may sell into those countries, a spokesman at the court said.
Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 0

From TFA this only applies to Samsung Germany from selling it to other countries in the EU.
Re:I don't understand by RenderSeven · 2011-09-09 07:44 · Score: 3, Informative

According to manufacturing.net "The ruling by a Duesseldorf state court, however, only applies to direct sales from the Seoul, South Korea-based company, meaning distributors who acquire the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany." So Samsung Germany cant sell it in Germany, but Samsung in Korea can sell them to German distributors who can sell them in Germany. Doesnt seem like much of a ban at all, actually.
Re:I don't understand by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 23:39 · Score: 0

So, and why is this modded flaimbait? Could you read my parent perhaps? He clearly is lying and says stuff that is not true.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Can anyone tell me... by recoiledsnake · 2011-09-09 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

--
This space for rent.

Re:Can anyone tell me... by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1

My monitor could be prior art. Its a rectangle with rounded edges so I don't cut my hand against the edge when closing the laptop lid.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Kenja · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 2

Its not prior art because its not made by Apple, duh.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Telvin_3d · 2011-09-09 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because, despite many misleading headlines and voluminous nerdrage, this has never been about tablets in general. Apple didn't sue Samsung for making a tablet. Apple sued Samsung for making a tablet with some very specific features and designs that they claimed were stolen from protected Apple designs. After looking at the case, the courts have agreed that those very specific features were indeed used improperly.
But all the headlines are "Apple claims they own all tablets" and then we get posts like yours.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:37 · Score: 2

Care to toss me a link to an article listing these very specific features?
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Kenja · 2011-09-09 06:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode. If that doesn't just about cover all tablets what does?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Riceballsan · 2011-09-09 06:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Well the patent in question pointed out was more or less just a picture of a rounded rectangular device with a touchscreen, no details on technical implimentations. Evidence itself was more or less just pictures of the layout and shape of the ipad next to the samsung galaxy, with the galaxy's images resized and resolution changed to match the ipad
Re:Can anyone tell me... by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-09 06:48 · Score: 1

Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode. If that doesn't just about cover all tablets what does?
Everybody had those on Deep Space 9.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:52 · Score: 0

So next we will get something like, "This Toyota Corolla looks a lot like this Honda Civic - you can't sell this Corolla in Germany".
Re:Can anyone tell me... by ObiWanKenblowme · 2011-09-09 07:03 · Score: 0

If a Corolla looked enough like a Civic as to potentially cause confusion among buyers, then yeah. You'd get something exactly like that.

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by tonywong · 2011-09-09 07:07 · Score: 1

http://www.caradvice.com.au/14583/fiat-panda-chinese-copy-banned-from-europe/
Re:Can anyone tell me... by dogmatixpsych · 2011-09-09 07:08 · Score: 1

It's also because Samsung was involved in manufacturing processes for Apple and then Samsung comes out with tablets (and modifications of Android) that are a lot like the iPad (more so than other tablets).
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 07:10 · Score: 2

Yeah, I mean when buying an expensive device you don't check whether the box has "Samsung" or "Apple" on it, you don't check what OS the device runs or anything of that sort, you just pick it up at random and then realise you made a mistake. Whoops.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:24 · Score: 0

Here's the registered design. Those are the only specific features the whole lawsuit was based on.
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
Re:Can anyone tell me... by toriver · 2011-09-09 07:25 · Score: 1

Do they? Is that the complete court filings compressed into one sentence? Where did you read the court filings? (And doctored documents posted by bloggers do not count as court filings.) Is it possible Slashdot posters and the judge have different sources?
Re:Can anyone tell me... by ObiWanKenblowme · 2011-09-09 07:29 · Score: 0

So you're argument is that as long as the box is labelled somewhere with the manufacturer's name, it shouldn't matter how closely alike the products look?

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:33 · Score: 0

So it really boils down to buyers being stupid and confused when it comes to computers. Oh and judges too. Please, people are used to cars so they know that 4 tires, a trunk and hood don't make a car unique. It would appear that people don't know what makes a computer unique so we get silly decisions like this.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 07:41 · Score: 2

No, my argument is that 'causing confusion among buyers' is a bit silly if you're putting your name and brand and OS on it. We're not talking about selling an iiPad.
I realise that people try to cheat with apple clones or whatever, but this is not the case. The packaging clearly shows that you're not buying an Ipad.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Henriok · 2011-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

No, since Apple's design patent is from 2004. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/13/apple_tablet_mac/

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:52 · Score: 0

Do they? Is that the complete court filings compressed into one sentence?
No, it's just one of the things they claim to own. No one said it was the entire claim, but that's a nice straw man.

rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;

That's a pretty silly, since almost 100% of all smart phones fit that criteria. The rest of the list is equally mundane. Sorry, I can't read German, so that's from the US case.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:53 · Score: 0

It really boils down to "you don't understand what a 'design patent' is" or "how the law works".
Re:Can anyone tell me... by uniquename72 · 2011-09-09 07:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple claims to own rectangular tablet computers with rounded corners and cameras on the front that can be used in portrait mode.
Interesting, considering that the first iPad didn't have a front-facing camera, and those of us who thought that was a ridiculous oversight were called Apple-hating trolls and told that a camera would be a useless addition.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:08 · Score: 0

It is not prior art because it is not an actual product. I am familiar of one case invovling my company where a prior art claim was rejected for a product we originally developed up to the prototype stage but then abandoned and never shipped. Because the work was abandoned the prior art claim did not hold. In this case it is merely a drawing.
Not that I am supporting Apple in this case.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by thestudio_bob · 2011-09-09 08:10 · Score: 2

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ [techcrunch.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ [techcrunch.com]
I know people seem to forget things, but around that time the rumor mill was in full gear speculating that Apple was creating a secret "tablet-like" device. I believe it all started with this patent: Apple Reveals Secret Notebook Tablet. The patent was reveled on July 10th, 2008. The TechCrunch "Help Us Build a Tablet" was posted almost 11 days later. And if you went to any tech site at that time, pretty much everyone was talking about "How they would love a tablet that was just like the iPhone but bigger". Actually, I'm pretty sure that's where Arrington originally got his idea for hisTechCrunch tablet.
Another thing people seem to forget, is that Steve Jobs himself said at the D8 Conference that Apple was working on a "Tablet" long before they were working on the iPhone. Apple started tablet project before iPhone, says Jobs. So with that in mind, the iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007*, that means they were already working on it well before that date. Heck in the same article, Steve basically laid out what the design was going to look like....

"I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display," Jobs said. "And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my God, we can build a phone with this,' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."
*For all your LG Prada freaks, it was announced on December 12, 2006... You're telling me Apple conceived and designed the iPhone in 28 days?!!?

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by cHiphead · 2011-09-09 08:19 · Score: 1

If they called it a Samsung iTablet or some such shit I could see a vague argument, but its not, and knock off similarities are perfectly fine in different devices. This whole situation is fucked. Apple has traveled down the wrong road here, their very essence is take OTHER people's developments and making them shinier and simplified. Its not innovation, its turning advanced technology into "McTechnology", easily consumable by the masses (although so far the masses that buy Apple products tend to pay MORE for the privilege than other industry equivalents, lucky Apple).

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by rhook · 2011-09-09 08:21 · Score: 1

Supplying components to Apple != being involved in Apple's manufacturing process.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:27 · Score: 0

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/
Because Apple's Community Design is from 2004, IOW prior. And that's just one reason. Most of which you have already been told. Over and over again.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by VirginMary · 2011-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1

So what does "So you are argument" mean? Sorry, I am not a native English speaker but that just sounds very strange to me!

--
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:46 · Score: 0

Care to toss me a link to an article listing these very specific features?
Quite an admission that you never bothered to actually read Apple's claims.
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
Re:Can anyone tell me... by ardeez · 2011-09-09 08:52 · Score: 1

Aren't there more things at play than that though?
Like similar materials used, placement of ports and design of
edges and general finish.
I mean, if somebody decided to wholesale copy a Mercedes Benz and called GalaxyBenz instead, it would be pretty much the same.
Samsung clearly set out to make their tablet as similar to the iPad as they possibly could - and are now being punished for what can only be classed as sleazy business tactics.
I think it's a good thing. Great artists steal, but only fucking retards totally photocopy.

--
don't be a spelling loser
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:56 · Score: 0

You know what else has been repeated ad naseum?

http://gizmodo.com/5483914/steve-jobs-1996-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal

Where would the world be if people couldn't create/improve/refine something from previous creations and/or ideas?

We'll soon find out, if recent trends are anything to go by.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Minix · 2011-09-09 09:12 · Score: 1

If a Corolla looked enough like a Civic as to potentially cause confusion among buyers, then yeah. You'd get something exactly like that.
No, that would be trademark infringment - the 'potentially cause confusion' test derives from the tort of 'passing off' one thing as another.

--
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Re:Can anyone tell me... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

What, you've never complained about a missing or broken feature in an Apple product before?
My favorite is still this forum thread where a guy is complaining that he's using "hun" to address his girlfriend, and iPad email and chat apps always capitalize it; so he was asking for a way to add his spelling to the spell checker dictionary - and, apparently, it is simply not extensible in iOS. The advice he got from a resident Apple fan:
"call her something else besides hun? Honey? Baby? Babe? Seems like an easy fix."
You're holding it wrong, indeed.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by manekineko2 · 2011-09-09 09:52 · Score: 1

Uhh, this is from a completely different lawsuit, and covers US Registrations.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 10:55 · Score: 1

Wow, the second link sounds a whole lot like the the iPad that was released nearly a year after the article. However, that's only relevant if you ignore the fact that the iPhone and iPod Touch came out about a year before that article, and have essentially the same features and design, only in a smaller form factor, so Apple still has the first to market advantage any way you look at it.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Can anyone tell me... by bell.colin · 2011-09-09 13:52 · Score: 2

Then what about this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coAVn_qqhCw
Pretty sure that thing's R&D may even pre-date the iPod, Oh look rectangle with rounded corners.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by X.25 · 2011-09-09 14:02 · Score: 1

Because, despite many misleading headlines and voluminous nerdrage, this has never been about tablets in general. Apple didn't sue Samsung for making a tablet. Apple sued Samsung for making a tablet with some very specific features and designs that they claimed were stolen from protected Apple designs.
Which innovative features would those be?
Re:Can anyone tell me... by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 14:10 · Score: 1

So, which part of "it's about the overall design, not just rounded corners" doesn't get through to you? Nothing anyone has posted other than the Galaxy Tab looks like an iPad or iPhone. There is more to that design patent than a rounded corner rectangle. There are at least 10 other tablet manufacturers who Apple hasn't sued for infringing upon this design patent, because those others don't look strikingly similar to an iPad and don't have all of the specific features covered in the design. The Galaxy tab is the only one anyone has shown that is close enough to violate the design patent.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 16:23 · Score: 0

It means I didn't proofread my post well enough.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by rrohbeck · 2011-09-09 16:58 · Score: 1

Apple is correct: Hun is capitalized.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Can anyone tell me... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 17:13 · Score: 1

The question is not whether it is a correct setting by default. The point is that the person in question uses a word that is not in the dictionary, and wants to add it to that dictionary - and can't. And this can be particularly annoying on iOS because of auto-correction - you don't want to turn it off because it is so damn useful in general, but you don't want it to correct the words it incorrectly identifies as wrong either.
On Android, you can very easily add any non-standard (or rarely used by others) words to auto-correction dictionary. But with Apple - as usual - all you get is "you're typing it wrong", with no recourse.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 18:24 · Score: 0

If you had published details of your prototype or publicly demonstrated the prototype, it would have been prior art. Nothing says it needs to be "an actual product", just the requirement that it's been made available to the public, thus eliminating novelty.
Of course, the design patent (US) and community design (EU) covering the iPad's rrect shape both date to 2004, which is the real reason Arrington's Folly is not prior art. For prior art, one might look at ST:TNG.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by t2t10 · 2011-09-09 21:17 · Score: 1

The iPad uses a monobloc metal case, the Galaxy 10.1 uses plastic.
The iPad has its back camera in a corner near the top in portrait mode, the Galaxy 10.1 has it centered on a side. Ditto for the front facing cameras.
The iPad has its connector at the bottom in portrait mode, the Galaxy has it on its side.
The Galaxy Tab has its cameras and connectors in the same places as the iPad 2, but it _predates_ the iPad 2, so if anything, Apple copied Samsung. Furthermore, the placement is utilitarians: do you want to use he device in portrait or landscape mode. Landscape turns out to be more useful for large tablets and Apple got the design of the iPad 2 wrong.
Just about the ony thing the Galaxy 10.1 and the iPad have in common is that they have glass on the front , are thin, and are rectangular. But there are several designs that predate even the iPad 1 that look like that.
Apple and that judge are full of shit. And the entire iPad is a photocopy of non-Apple designs. Apple steals and then markets the hell out of their products so that people like you believe the "innovated".
Re:Can anyone tell me... by agendi · 2011-09-10 00:17 · Score: 1

I think that what you really mean to say is that of the 10 other tablet manufacturers who Apple hasn't sued for infringing upon this design patent, the Samsung Galaxy tab is the only one that is likely to succeed, I don't think this has much to do with protecting the "design", rather using the design to protect their market share. I have one of each (ipad2 and galaxy tab) on my desk at work and I don't think they would cause anyone to pick up the wrong device, even in a hurry. While similar, they just aren't THAT alike.

--
I just can't be bothered.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by arose · 2011-09-10 06:23 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't even bother putting their name on the front of the box. Then complain that other boxes look like their generic one. Scum.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 06:32 · Score: 0

*For all your LG Prada freaks, it was announced on December 12, 2006... You're telling me Apple conceived and designed the iPhone in 28 days?!!?
No, we are saying that Apple didn't design anything unique. Both the Prada and N800 came out that year, both look a lot like the iPhone (hell, the iPhone 4 looks like a shameless rip off of the Prada, at least of you live in a strange world were generic designs can be ripped off). The designers were headed that way, we are just pointing out how Apple shouldn't get to monopolise this trend towards generic black soap bars because their device is more popular.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by arose · 2011-09-10 06:33 · Score: 1

The community design, not design patent, doesn't cover many features at all, it is just about all it shows, and neither the iPad nor the Tab actually look like it because its much thicker.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by thestudio_bob · 2011-09-10 06:49 · Score: 1

Pretty sure that thing's R&D may even pre-date the iPod, Oh look rectangle with rounded corners.
Haha... yeah, I'm sure that spent years and years deciding the size of the pen and the length of the cable it's attached to.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:Can anyone tell me... by gstrickler · 2011-09-10 07:31 · Score: 1

You think wrong. Don't try to put words in my mouth, I stated exactly what I meant.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Too bad Apple can't sell their iDevices on their own merits, rather than snuffing out the competition!

Re:Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:38 · Score: 0

one needs only to look at the sales numbers of iPads vs absolutely-fucking-anything to realize that they're having no trouble moving them.
Having owned ipad1 iPad 2 galaxy tab 10.1 and moto xoom i can assure you that there isn't any competition to snuff yet...both android tablets were buggy flimsy shit.
I dont understand why everyone is getting so butt hurt about this lawsuit. Samsung makes a tablet that looks like the iPad, with iPad looking icons, an iPad looking dock connector and comes in and iPad looking box...why wouldn't Apple sue them? If anything all this BS is probably getting these me-too kirf tablets more publicity than they would otherwise, who the fuck in their right mind would pay $500 for a kirf iPad when a real one is the same price?
Re:Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:08 · Score: 0

I dont understand why everyone is getting so butt hurt about this lawsuit. Samsung makes a tablet that looks like the iPad, with iPad looking icons, an iPad looking dock connector and comes in and iPad looking box...why wouldn't Apple sue them?
The judgment has nothing to do with the box, the icons or the connector. It's about the rectangular shape of a mobile computing device.

If anything all this BS is probably getting these me-too kirf tablets more publicity than they would otherwise, who the fuck in their right mind would pay $500 for a kirf iPad when a real one is the same price?
1. It has more RAM (1GB vs 512MB)
2. Both cameras are of better quality.
3. It's thinner and lighter
4. You are not forced to use iTunes to use it
5. You don't need Apple's approval before having the right to install a software on a tablet you own
6. Display resolution is higher
7. In Canada, it's also cheaper.
8. It has a GPS even on the Wifi version. GPS navigation is free
9. The HSPA version is 21 Mbps instead of, I guess, 7.2 Mbps. And there is even an LTE version
So yeah, why would anyone buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1?
Unfortunately, Samsung copied Apple's bad habit of having a proprietary dock connector and no SD card slot. I wish Apple sues Samsung for that.
Re:Apple! by kanguro · 2011-09-09 07:19 · Score: 0, Troll

No Apps? Cluster*uck malware ridden market? Crap user experience? Worst operating system for a tablet? Pick your choice.
Re:Apple! by rtfa-troll · 2011-09-09 07:21 · Score: 1

one needs only to look at the sales numbers of iPads vs absolutely-fucking-anything to realize that they're having no trouble moving them.
Nobody's denying that. What the grandparent post is saying is that if the Samsung would have been on sale then Apple would have sold less. And if Apple hadn't been running around the whole phone and touchpad market threatening people then a whole bunch of other devices better than the Samsung would have been on the market earlier. Apple is directly hurting the consumer by stopping the production of any device which is better than their own.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Apple! by Reapman · 2011-09-09 07:37 · Score: 1

What apps are it missing? I've switched from iPhone to Android and so far I'm missing.. let's see.. LuxDlx game. Granted I also have replaced it with 3 or 4 other games that pass the time..
Malware ridden? Do you mean the 3 or 4 different malware items that no longer exists on the market? Where I come from that term would indicate that a sizable chunk - let's say 50% - of apps are pure malware. Please provide proof of this claim.
Crap user experience / worst operating system? - Hard to proof or disprove that - I think it`s an amazing user experience (oh look, I don`t need to open an App to see the weather forcast, oh look, Notifications don`t suck!) and so I guess we can call it a draw.
If I was an Apple Fanboy I'd be rather embaressed by your post - your really just making your "side" look dumber.
Re:Apple! by sharkey · 2011-09-09 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Over-the-air updates are the WORST! How can Android claim to be competing when it doesn't require a bloated shovelware PC application and a half-dozen resource-sucking background processes just to update the OS?

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:55 · Score: 0

How much does Apple pay you to suck Steve Jobs dick?
Re:Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:57 · Score: 0

Anyone who values functionality, openness and specs above a shiny Apple logo.
Re:Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 13:17 · Score: 0

So yeah, why would anyone buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1? Unfortunately, Samsung copied Apple's bad habit of having a proprietary dock connector and no SD card slot. I wish Apple sues Samsung for that.
Copied? No way - that's pure coincidence. Like the non-replaceable battery. As for your question: ask just about anyone on this world - those who didn't.

Ridiculous! by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:25 · Score: 1, Troll

How is it possible that a judge could be more ignorant of the law than a hoard of anonymous outraged nerds on slashdot?

Re:Ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:31 · Score: 0

Maybe he knows law, yet has no clue about technology. Nerds on Slashdot certainly know tech.
Re:Ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:34 · Score: 0

The judge may be applying german law correctly. Given that Germany has a lot of stupid laws on the books, that wouldn't be surprising.
Re:Ridiculous! by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-09 06:35 · Score: 1

Amazingly, you could make the same inane comment no matter what way the judge ruled! It's a win win for stupidity. If another judge in some other country finds the exact polar opposite in his ruling, I guess it's possible we can have an opinion then, or is that not cool too?
Re:Ridiculous! by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:37 · Score: 1

Hey you're probably right. I can just imagine how the judge made this decision:
"... what? ipscreen? 500 mebibibbets..es.. Huh? oh.. my head hurts... Oooh, pretty picture.... I like.... Apple good."
Re:Ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:40 · Score: 0

Or maybe he had a good time when Apple took him to dinner.
Re:Ridiculous! by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:45 · Score: 1

Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
A nice meal... a few beers... some after dinner "entertainment"...
German judges are such pushovers.

New Dictator in Germany? by MrBGsays · 2011-09-09 06:26 · Score: 1

sieg heil! Apple

Re:New Dictator in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:35 · Score: 0

sieg heil! Apple
No, no, no. Apple über alles!

This case is black and white by chrisj_0 · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1

Ipad is white galaxy tab is black: how do they look alike?

Re:This case is black and white by Haedrian · 2011-09-09 06:28 · Score: 1

They're both rounded rectangles. You see Apple invented the rounded rectangle. If you find any textbooks which say otherwise, please return them to the Ministry of Information for corrections.

Nazis..... by Vinegar+Joe · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1

I hate those guys - Indiana Jones

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Re:Nazis..... by blair1q · 2011-09-09 07:03 · Score: 1

Illinois Nazis.
-Elwood Blues
I hate Illinois Nazis.
-Jake Blues

Finally? by SwedishChef · 2011-09-09 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative

According to the story Samsung Germany is appealing the decision so it's probably not "final". In addition, the ruling only bans Samsung Germany from selling into the EU marketplace; other Samsung divisions can sell into it.

--
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!

Re:Finally? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:47 · Score: 0

According to the story Samsung Germany is appealing the decision so it's probably not "final". In addition, the ruling only bans Samsung Germany from selling into the EU marketplace; other Samsung divisions can sell into it.
But other regions will soon get the German result thrown into the court cases, adding more weight to them on Apple's side. Generally, judges don't like to disagree, so this is a massive "win" for Apple.
Re:Finally? by Beriaru · 2011-09-09 08:07 · Score: 1

Clearly you're not european.
Judges don't give a shit about what other country's judges say.
Re:Finally? by boorack · 2011-09-09 08:29 · Score: 1

Which is a Good Thing (TM). Why some corrupt german judge would ban me from buying Galaxy Tab in, say, Poland ?
Re:Finally? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:13 · Score: 0

That's right. People in all of EU, except Germany, can buy Galaxy Tabs from any division of Samsung other than Samsung Germany, due to jurisdiction limits of the German court. However, Apple registered their design in the EU, so they might theoretically sue in other countries as well, and maybe even be able to use the court verdict in Germany as a precedent. IANAL.
Re:Finally? by dkf · 2011-09-09 10:28 · Score: 1

However, Apple registered their design in the EU, so they might theoretically sue in other countries as well, and maybe even be able to use the court verdict in Germany as a precedent.
Except that a majority of EU countries don't formally admit precedence as part of court cases, and those that do aren't particularly inclined to be bound by the decision of a German lower court. Moreover, there are some subtle differences between EU countries in how the laws in this area are specified and tried.
The equivalent in the US would be a decision by a lower state court (though in a very big state; Germany's got more population than California, Texas and New York state combined).

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"

Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:33 · Score: 0

Germany is simply screwed up. Of all the shit that came out of there and all the stuff they stop from being released. Not the first case like this there.

Doomed! by na1led · 2011-09-09 06:36 · Score: 1

Samsung Tablet is doomed! Samsung is getting punched in the gut by Apple, slapped in the face by HP (touchpads at $99), and soon kicked in the groin by Amazon! Can anyone smell a FireSale?

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.

Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:37 · Score: 0, Informative

If you don't recall from previous articles on this, Apple photoshopped the evidence to make it look like the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy Tab were similar. They also customized the screen on the Galaxy Tab to make it look more like an iPad instead of using the default screen.

Here, I'll even give you links:

Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case
More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung

In short: Apple won because they lied to the judge.

Re:Because Apple lied in court by Kenja · 2011-09-09 06:54 · Score: 2

So your claim is that a rounded rectangle is now an Apple logo? Thats a stretch by even Jobsian standards. And if its true that Apple owns the rounded rectangle despite it being a standard form factor, what exactly do you suggest other hardware makers do?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Because Apple lied in court by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 06:58 · Score: 1

Sure. A German court found for Apple twice because of some photoshopped pictures.
Right....
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Kenja · 2011-09-09 07:00 · Score: 1

given that the initial ruling was given without Samsung being allowed to defend itself or present evidence, why is that so hard to believe?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Tharsman · 2011-09-09 07:04 · Score: 0

There are only two types of people that can simplify the lawsuit so plainly: Apple haters and google Fanbois.
The lawsuit was not just because of the rounded rect proportion around the device. It was about the entire device design, and once you shrink the thing 10% vertically both units are nearly identical. Samsung even goes away from the Android design standards of back/home/menu buttons intentionally to make the device look more like Apple's devices.
Again: I don't really care if Apple was right because I still think the lawsuit is stupid, but I also feel that plagiarism, although not illegal (and hopefully never so), should be publicly called out when its that intentional. And I say this as some one who got his wife a Samsung Gravity phone.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Kenja · 2011-09-09 07:06 · Score: 2

"once you shrink the thing 10% vertically both units are nearly identical"

Different size, different layout, different aspect ratio, etc. If you're going to claim they are the same, how about you list the similarities other then "rectangular with rounded corners and a camera on the front" which is all I've seen Apple claim so far.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Spectre · 2011-09-09 07:09 · Score: 1

So your claim is that a rounded rectangle is now an Apple logo? Thats a stretch by even Jobsian standards. And if its true that Apple owns the rounded rectangle despite it being a standard form factor, what exactly do you suggest other hardware makers do?
Well, there is always the Pear Phone and it's larger sibling, the Pear Pad.

--
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Re:Because Apple lied in court by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 07:10 · Score: 1

And when Samsung was there the second time, I'm sure they forgot to mention the eeeeeevvvvil photoshopping.
Too bad Samsung hired a bunch of incompetents as lawyers. Any outraged nerd on slashdot could have done better.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Kenja · 2011-09-09 07:13 · Score: 2, Informative

If its so unique, then you should have no problems listing its unique features. So far I've not seen any such list. Apples own filings are just a picture of a rectangular touch screen computer with rounded corners and a camera.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:22 · Score: 0

The problem is that the difference between the Apple tablet and the Samsung tablet is about as big as the difference between the Apple tablet and previous tablets from other companies.
Apple wasn't first with the design they claim that they have a design trademark on.
Have you by the way even looked at Apples design patent that is used in this case? I have and it is so sketchy that it isn't obvious if it is for an iPad or an IBM thinkpad with closed lid.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:31 · Score: 0

A rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded
AND
The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders
AND
As to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width
AND
As to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width
AND
A metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface
AND
A display of a grid of colourful square icons with uniformly rounded corners
AND
A bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
AND
A rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box
AND
A two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box
All of those things COMBINED is why the Samsung rightfully lost this.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by ObiWanKenblowme · 2011-09-09 07:32 · Score: 1

Since the German court has ruled twice on the side of the argument that I agree with, I really don't think I have to. But please, feel free to explain the myriad differences between them and clear up your position.

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Billly+Gates · 2011-09-09 07:48 · Score: 1

These are not patentable. Copyrighted perhaps.
I think Europe should ban all non Ford cars.
They have a sterring wheel
AND
They have four wheels
AND
THeir engines have cylnders
AND
They use timing belts
AND
They use a liquid cooling system and a radiator
AND
They muffle the sound coming out of the engine by using something called a muffler
AND
They have an internal combustion engine using gasoline for propulsion
AND ... why am I wasting time writting to this troll.
These are all generic things and standards. Maybe if Ford developed a new kind of hybrid engine that it spent large amounts of money developing then that could be patented. But using standard HD resolution which determines the shape and implementing them and using icons are not patents.
Windows won over Apple because it was not identical and the courts ruled in Microsoft's favor. THis is redicolous and an abuse of the patent system to overcome this. I am so glad I stuck with Windows and did not get an iMac and iPhone last fall. I would feel very dirty

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:57 · Score: 0

But using standard HD resolution which determines the shape and implementing them and using icons are not patents.
Apple? Standards? Don't make me laugh.
The iPad doesn't use a standard HD resolution. It uses some bullshit resolution Apple made up that doesn't match anything, anywhere. (This is why they had to photoshop the movies that they show on the device in their print ads: the movies wouldn't fill the display if they didn't.)
The Galaxy Tab also isn't a standard HD resolution, but at least its aspect ratio (when it hasn't been photoshopped to look like an iPad) is widescreen, so it CAN fit actual movies onto the display.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:19 · Score: 0

AND
They have four wheels
Apples is not suing because they both have screens.

AND
THeir engines have cylnders
Apples is not suing because they both have processors.
Also it's spelled cylinders, and you only capitalize the first l first letter of words.

AND
They use timing belts
Apples is not suing because they both have ram.

AND
They use a liquid cooling system and a radiator
Apples is not suing because they both have internal storage.

AND
They muffle the sound coming out of the engine by using something called a muffler
Apples is not suing because they both have speakers.

AND
They have an internal combustion engine using gasoline for propulsion
Apples is not suing because they both have batteries.
None of those thing have any analogy to court filing listed above.
http://www.carolinaclassictrucks.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/EXTERIOR/APS/D65375.jpg
If you need a car example Chrysiler could sue another car maker if that car maker made:
Front grill divided into 4 equal quadrants.
AND
Logo located at the top of the center grill diverter.
AND
Horizontal diverter is narrower that the vertical diverter.
AND
Grill extends out into a raised hood.
AND
Headlights located to side of grill following recess in hood.
AND
Band underneath grill matching color of the body separating the bumper from grill.
AND
Recess in hood tappers out to full width of the windshield.
The only reason Microsoft won that case against apple was because they had a loop hole in a contract that they had with apple that granted them permission to copy apples design.
Not that i expect you to have the intelligence to understand any of this.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2011-09-09 08:22 · Score: 1

Internet nerds? If youare not an Internet nerd what are you doing in a forum arguing about the merits of Apples patent claims. You telling me you are a TMZ surfing hottie that took a wrong turn at Alburquerque and accidently ended up posting on Slashsdot?
Hey Pot meet Kettle... just sayin
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Vintermann · 2011-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1

> Since the German court has ruled twice on the side of the argument that I agree with, I really don't think I have to.
Yes, you do. You have to explain why you agree with it, not come here with some bullshit judicial positivism.
Different: Different size, different layout, different aspect ratio, different number of buttons.
Similar: Rounded rectangle. Camera.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Billly+Gates · 2011-09-09 08:28 · Score: 1

Apple is suing because it has a rectangular screen and icons. That simple, so to me it is the same. A round Tab would not sell which is what Apple wants. They parented a standard much like Ford patenting a steering wheel and four wheels for a vehicle. I see no difference and it is extortion and abuse

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:36 · Score: 0

Apple is suing because it has a rectangular screen and icons.
No apple is not suing because of that.
Apple is suing over ...
A rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded
AND
The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders
AND
As to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width
AND
As to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width
AND
A metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface
AND
A display of a grid of colourful square icons with uniformly rounded corners
AND
A bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
AND
A rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box
AND
A two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box

I see no difference because I'm too stupid to understand it.
Fixed your last sentence for you.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:01 · Score: 0

If you don't recall from previous articles on this, Apple photoshopped the evidence to make it look like the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy Tab were similar. They also customized the screen on the Galaxy Tab to make it look more like an iPad instead of using the default screen.>
In short: Apple won because they lied to the judge.
He looked at the actual fucking hardware - are you claiming Apple slipped in a fake Samsung Galaxy Tab somehow?
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 09:18 · Score: 1

Different: Different size, different layout, different aspect ratio, different number of buttons.
ROFL,
so you o and build a mercedes benz that has a star on its front which has a different size? You chnge the layout by turning the star ba ... 45 degrees? And you add some more "buttons" in the cockpit?
LOL

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Aighearach · 2011-09-09 09:57 · Score: 1

what exactly do you suggest other hardware makers do?
bladed rectangles!
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 10:43 · Score: 0

You mac users are so blind from the truth from your beloved blind zealotry. Go take your crappy Apple products and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
I am keeping my Droid because I love freedom.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 10:43 · Score: 2

so you o and build a mercedes benz that has a star on its front which has a different size?

iPad has a very prominent Apple logo on the back. Galaxy Tab has a very prominent Samsung logo right in front, under the screen. Your analogy is about as wrong as it can get
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 14:16 · Score: 0

And of course, those who hire incompetent lawyers are guilty automatically and deserve the full punishment as charged! (tm)
* This statement was made in America, where those with money make the rules.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 23:34 · Score: 1

No my analogy is not wrong, seems you dont look through it ;D
Just because I use the logo as an example, you lack the imagination to extend it to the form of the car. In germany it is not allowed to make a car that looks exactly like a Mercedes Benz. Even if you omit the star it still would infringe on "look and feel"
Heck, you can not even reprogram software which looks exactly the same like another one.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-10 07:21 · Score: 1

Well, we're not exactly talking about a car here. Cars have lots of elements in them that can be differently shaped. This is more like patenting a three-spoke steering wheel, for example.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 08:54 · Score: 1

Apples is not suing because they both have screens.
Ahem...

The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 09:00 · Score: 1

so you o and build a mercedes benz that has a star on its front which has a different size?
How could I be so blind, the back clearly has a slightly modified Apple logo. Indeed, anyone would be confused by the shiny plastic back with near identical logo, why it looks exactly like the matt metal of the iPad.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 09:02 · Score: 1

He looked at it after Apples highly biased finding. But since judges aren't subject to confirming their initial impressions and dismissing contrary evidence unlike us stupid mortals this surely is irrelevant.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 09:04 · Score: 0

Apples is not suing because they both have screens.
Ahem...

The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders
Again Apple is not suing because they both have screens.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 09:27 · Score: 1

Well,
nevertheless on the first glance what is going on right now is completely in the frame of law. Nothing obscure going on, except that Samsung seems to fail to bring good arguments into court.
I mean: what do you expect a judge to do? In germany a judge judges by the evidence brought to him in court. And even if he knows as a person by his own knowledge that an argumentation makes no sense, it is not invalidated unless the opposing faction does so!! I mean ofc only stuff which is law / court relevant. That does not mean you simply can bullshit around with him ... by bringing a pointless cause e.g.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 09:40 · Score: 1

It is not just the logo, on the first glance the whole thing looks identically.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-10 10:34 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, so I'll leave it to the judges to interpret law as it stands on the books. My point is simply that if German law recognizes this ridiculously generic kind of design patent, so much so that blocking sales is a valid recourse, then something's wrong with the law.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 10:39 · Score: 1

No, as neither you nor me have likely read the papers Apple used to file the suit nor did anyone of us read the papers Samsung has filed to defend, we both don't know what is going on.
On the first glance I agree with Apples point of view. And also with the german law. After all if *I* was the inventor of something new I would like to be safe from plagiators for a while as well.
However I agree that a Samsung tablet is not an iPad and that the suit itself is nonsens. Nevertheless, that is what I tried to point out in my previous post: Samsung failed to bring up a reasonable defense.
In the long run this will hurt Apple more than Samsung anyway ... so lets sit back and watch the fire works ;D

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 11:15 · Score: 1

Did you miss the fact that the logo is nothing alike. Or that plastic is nothing alike matt metal. Or that there are many products that look alike at a glace. Quick, let's compare laptops or monitors.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 11:18 · Score: 1

It's a fucking tablet, it can hardly have a screen without it dominating the front surface, black boarders are so generic it's not even funny. Yes, that is essentially the same as suing for having a screen, among other things. Even the Samsung "tablets" people keep unfairly comparing to have a front dominated by a screen with black boarders.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 11:29 · Score: 1

Sigh, I give up.
I did not talk about the logo.
The logo was an example.
How hard is that to get?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 11:38 · Score: 1

You did not talk about the logo, you just talked about the logo. The most recognisable, distinctive and trademark protected part of any branding. How hard is it to get that a generic design is distinguished by details? Apple didn't have to go with a highly minimalist design, OTOH requiring Samsung to be distinctive because they aren't is absurd. And since you think that somehow is relevant... I give up, how hard is that to get? Wow, I can do it too!

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 11:53 · Score: 1

Your point is not even clear. What the fuck do you want to say?
Apple made something that looks like this: ####
Samsung made something that looks like this: ####
So on the first glance they are identical. And my logo was an example about making something identically!! After all, I talked about a mercedes benz star, may fault admitted, poor example. I did not talk about an Apple logo or a Samsung logo. Why the heck is that so hard to get? You may not copy a star, you may not copy the whole car, you may not copy something someone else makes. Is it CLEAR now? In Europe, especially germany it is not legal to COPY something.
So what exactly in your eyes makes an Apple tablet different from the Samsung tablet?
And why is it the judges or the laws fault if Samsung is to stupid to point the differences out?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 14:48 · Score: 1
It's not a copy, it's a similar design. Logos are a whole different ballgame.

So what exactly in your eyes makes an Apple tablet different from the Samsung tablet?
Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts.
- Glass front? Gorilla glass makes this a practical feature to protect against scratches, not a design feature.
- Rounded corners? Easier to hold on the corners, doesn't catch as much in bags -- practical, not just design.
- Rounded back? Again, easier to slide into a bag/sleeve, not just design
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you. There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I suspect that Samsung's lawyers missed the mark and/or didn't consult with the designers and engineers and/or had little time to prep and will do better in the appeal. It seems to me (again, speculation) that Apple convinced the judge that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way, combined with the former -- Samsung's lawyers went to 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding, even though there are clear precursors in actual product, both hand held's and tablets.
--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-10 14:58 · Score: 1
Let's try this with non-mangled formatting It's not a copy, it's a similar design. Logos are a whole different ballgame, that's why the example doesn't work well.

So what exactly in your eyes makes an Apple tablet different from the Samsung tablet?

Form factor, back, branding, Honeycomb. There are only so many ways to make a tablet though, they are suing Motorola as well after all. It seems that one needs to not be minimalistic to avoid Apple. We'll see how Asus and Acer will play out, will their less rounded corners and bands of different material be enough if Apple prevails against Samsung? The most serious problem I see is that the iPad just has very few distinctive features. The home button and the Apple logo are the really memorable parts. The rest is just Apple being the most well known manufacturer to the general public.
- Glass front? Gorilla glass makes this a practical feature to protect against scratches, not a design feature.
- Rounded corners? Easier to hold on the corners, doesn't catch as much in bags -- practical, not just design.
- Rounded back? Again, easier to slide into a bag/sleeve, not just design.
There really isn't that much to the iPad, the community design is even worse. It has nothing distinctive about it. If this a unique tablet design, than this is this is Apple's community design, this is an actual iPad and this is an Galaxy Tab. Yes, they look the same at a glance, but that's industrial design for you.

And why is it the judges or the laws fault if Samsung is to stupid to point the differences out?
There can be reasons that don't involve any stupidity. Germany is a civil law country, so he might have no choice than to follow the law even if it's abused. Though if you want me to speculate, I think it might be that Apple convinced a judge who doesn't keep up with tech trends that it was an entirely new class of product, so instead of the design being evolutionary it was completely unique and unprecedented in any way and Samsung's lawyers dropped the ball either due to incompetence, not enough time for preponderation or just not consulting with designers (who could point to earlier products, both tablets and hand-helds, nor engineers, who could have pointed out how much improved technology plays into the design. Instead they went with 2001, the movie, of all places to show preceding designs, silly move.
--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-11 03:31 · Score: 1

Well, I have sympathy with your stand point, of. After all I don't like Apples approach neither.

I think it might be that Apple convinced a judge who doesn't keep up with tech trends
As I pointed out in another post. that is not how law works. Neither here in germany nor elsewhere (however judges in the USA have a bit more freedom)
A judge in Europe is as neutral as possible. As long as a claim is formal correct and is not "absurd" the judge will accept it, open a cause against the defending party and wait for their defense. It is not the judges job to be up to date with tech trends and "have his own opinion". The judge basically puts 3 papers on the table. The plaintiffs, the defenders, and the law. Then he plays "law processor" and uses his "law opcodes" to compute in which favour (plaintiff or defender) he decides and to which extend (looking at the options the law gives).
It is funny how this goes btw. a german company did the same thing Apple does right now around 1975 - 1980 in Japan. The judge there followed the law and "convicted" the japanese company. It took the german company roughly 40 years till any other japanese company accepted a business proposal again and made a deal with them. That german company literally lost billions of Euros by "winning" that law suit. After all in japan you would go for dinner, bring the matter to the others attention, and try to find a solution outside of the court. suing someone is such an insult, they never really forgive that.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by arose · 2011-09-11 06:40 · Score: 1

I doubt judges can just turn off everything they know, kno matter what judicial theory requires. Anyway, I didn't say the judge had to keep up with tech, I speculated (and was upfront about that) that with one who doesn't it would be possible to paint a very skewed picture and furthermore, I speculated that Samsung's lawyers weren't prepared for that particular scenario.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Because Apple lied in court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 15:58 · Score: 0

It's a fucking tablet, it can hardly have a screen without it dominating the front surface,
A rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded
AND
As to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width
AND
As to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width
AND
A metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface
AND
A display of a grid of colourful square icons with uniformly rounded corners
AND
A bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
AND
A rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box
AND
A two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box
Are you just stupid did you suffer brain damage. EVERYTHING combined makes it infringing and rightfully banned.
I would tell you to read this but you are clearly to stupid to understand written words.

In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:38 · Score: 0

I hear Samsung is developing a round tablet with square corners!

boycott Germany? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:39 · Score: 0

I have German blood & now i have to boycott things German eh? great.. just great.

Re:boycott Germany? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:04 · Score: 0

Yes. Go for it. Boycott your own blood.

Damn German Capitalists! by Alzheimers · 2011-09-09 06:43 · Score: 1

Who would have thought that, in 2011, we would be complaining about the damn German Capitalists ruining Europe?

I guess the old motto still holds true: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Re:Damn German Capitalists! by blair1q · 2011-09-09 07:05 · Score: 1

I would've thought by now we'd be pissed that the people on Ganymede were running an unobtainium cartel and driving up the price of telekinesis.
But, it's still Germans. And not one flying car.
Re:Damn German Capitalists! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 12:36 · Score: 0

Germany is quite anti-capitalist; Germany is still teetering between socialism, theocracy, and fascism, like it has been for the past few centuries.

"Minimalistic Design" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-09 06:46 · Score: 4, Informative

The Apple Defenders are cracking me up defending this.

The judge had the gall to say "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer". Seriously.

If you don't understand how absolutely ridiculous that is, the idea of a "minimalistic design" (even if you then go into details about silly things like rounded corners, no buttons, etc...) as something you can own, then there's simply no hope for you.

Germany's a bit nutty anyway, so I don't put too much stock in it. Worst case Samsung should just add a little button somewhere, change a few angles here or there, and resell. Then it can continue the slow domination of Apple again.

Re:"Minimalistic Design" by blair1q · 2011-09-09 07:07 · Score: 0

On the other hand, there is such a thing as a Design Patent, and if you make something that looks like someone else's design, you have to honor the patent until it runs out. That's how the patent system works, and the law. Don't like it? Get it changed. There's ways to do that, too.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by ObiWanKenblowme · 2011-09-09 07:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

And you anti-Apple posters are cracking me up with your misplaced outrage, so I guess it all evens out. And no, it's not the idea of "a minimalistic design" that the court says Apple can own - just that particular one. The one they used for the iPad. The one that Samsung copied. That one.

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Billly+Gates · 2011-09-09 07:41 · Score: 1

That particular design for a rectangle screen is a standard because of the way video is played and apps are displayed. HD formats have a certain ratio that are rectangular and Apple does not own them.
What is next all TVs not made by Sony have to be round?
That is BS. So Apple looked at the standard and made a patent to ban anyone but them for from following a standard Apple doesn't even own. That is extortion. If I were Samsung I would halt all production of the screens for Iphones and give Apple much pain regardless of the contract.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by toriver · 2011-09-09 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Nike "swoosh" is also a "minimalist design". Yet if I make a logo that looks almost the same, except I put a pink dot in the middle of mine, Nike are still going to haul my ass to court.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:28 · Score: 0

Oh, but if you scale it down about 10% on the y-axis it would be fine!
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by brillow · 2011-09-09 08:36 · Score: 1

If the Tab uses iPad's design, how is it that I can tell them apart?
Apple says they are the same, but they aren't at all. They are different sizes, weights, thicknesses. The OS looks different and works differently. They are clearly different objects.
Apple is doing this because the Tab was the first tablet which was from a design sense superior to the iPad. It's thinner and lighter.
Apple has to stop this.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by brillow · 2011-09-09 08:37 · Score: 1

Hey, is Samsung wants to make a tablet, why can't they just make it have a circular screen? Or a spherical one? Apple did a lot of innovation on that rectanglular screen and that wont have samsung stealing their IP!
(Note: The tab has a differently sized and shaped screen than the iPad)
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by marcosdumay · 2011-09-09 08:44 · Score: 1

If it is a logo it is by definition without function, and has no place in a minimalist design.

--
Rethinking email
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 09:22 · Score: 1

I don't really get why you brag about germany here while the same stuff has happend in the USA just a few days before??

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by nosferatu1001 · 2011-09-09 09:43 · Score: 1

You can patent a rounded rectangle? Wheres the innovation in that?
You can patent a design which has clear prior art? No innovation there, by definition
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:46 · Score: 0

It's not ANY minimalistic design, just Apple's particular minimalistic design.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Nemyst · 2011-09-09 09:48 · Score: 1

The judge wants an Alienware tablet.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by manekineko2 · 2011-09-09 09:56 · Score: 1

You mean, this particular one, the completely generic featureless screen on a tablet from the Community Design filing on which the decision was based?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Aighearach · 2011-09-09 10:02 · Score: 1

A) That isn't what brag means.
B) No, it hasn't.
Your score: 0
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by sjames · 2011-09-09 11:08 · Score: 1

They need to rub some salt into it. Just glue some tail fins on it with rubber cement so the user can remove them along with the protective plastic on the screen.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 13:05 · Score: 2

At least 10 other companies make tablets that don't look like iPads and they aren't being sued by Apple.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by djjockey · 2011-09-09 17:45 · Score: 2

The Nike "Swoosh" is a TRADEMARK. A REGISTERED TRADEMARK. Yes, it's minimalist but that's not quite the point.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Kartu · 2011-09-09 18:17 · Score: 1

So does Samsung.
But they can't stand mighty photoshop skills of apple's attorneys.
http://www.3dnews.ru/news/615774/
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-09 21:04 · Score: 1

Nonsense. Samsung is being sued because they are top android dog, and others not being sued only because they aren't threats yet. Apple is suing to stifle competition, quite simply.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-09 21:06 · Score: 1

It's the only fucking one there is! It's a tablet, a rectangular screen with a bezel. Are you on crack?
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-09 21:09 · Score: 1

How did this tripe get modded +? Samsung didn't use an apple logo. A better one would be Reebok suing Nike for making a high top shoe with a heel and laces. I mean, why not high tops with straps you copycat fucks?
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-09 23:42 · Score: 1

Yes it has. Was on /. Apple prevented Samsung from selling tablets in the USA. So why do you argue against german courts if the same thing is going on in the USA? Just because the judge has not decided yet? Or has he?
Thanx for the "brag", comment I assumed it would also hold in the negative sense and was wrong here ;D

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 06:12 · Score: 0

Wouldn't adding a little button to it somewhere make it MORE similar and not less? The Tab has no hardware Home button (capacitive or otherwise)
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 06:41 · Score: 0

Funny you use swoosh as an example as it is clearly an woosh moment for you and those who marked your post Insightful.
Nike swoosh logo design is not bounded by any hardware restrictions.
A tablet has to be rectangular because of the LCD screen, has to be thin for portability reasons, has to have rounded corners to a certain degree unless you want to use the tablets as a weapon. Whether there is front facing camera or not, and regardless of how many buttons it has, a tablet will always look similar to any other tablets out there.
Your comment is, in fact, entirely off topic.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by blair1q · 2011-09-11 10:14 · Score: 1

You can patent thin, rectangular computers with rounded corners, yes.
The only thing I know you can't design is cup handles. Cup-handle-shaped computers, you can probably get away with.
That's the system. You can patent what they haven't said you can't. And it's yours until the patent runs out.
Want it improved? File a patent on a new patent system. Then implement it and make it work.
Re:"Minimalistic Design" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 15:57 · Score: 0

Hmm, that's true, logos are a great analogy to hardware design.

NOT "Anywhere in Europe" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:47 · Score: 0

The summary (and perhaps the article, but I did not RTFA) is wrong:

Het verbod voor de hele Europese Unie werd wel ingetrokken omdat de rechtbank niet bevoegd is om een verbod op te leggen dat de landsgrenzen overstijgt. (source: Flemish (Belgian) public TV/radio)

Sorry for the Dutch, here's the translation: The prohibition for all of Europe was suspended because the court is not qualified to prohibit outside the [German] borders.

Since when is copying innovation? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:48 · Score: 0

I'm sorry but the attitude on /. here is that whatever not Apple would do it's ALWAYS wrong. Imagine if tables were reversed and how the reaction would be towards Samsung if there would be a reaction at all!

Re:Since when is copying innovation? by blair1q · 2011-09-09 07:01 · Score: 2

Ever read a patent application? Ever research the long list of cited patents in every one?
Innovation is nothing but copying and adding a dot.
Re:Since when is copying innovation? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:33 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but the attitude on /. here is that whatever not Apple would do it's ALWAYS wrong. Imagine if tables were reversed and how the reaction would be towards Samsung if there would be a reaction at all!
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4058472/Samsung-set-to-sue-Asian-phone-makers-says-report - http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_And_Downloads/Industry/X8M9G5T9 - http://consumerist.com/2010/05/samsung-sues-journalist-for-satirically-pointing-out-that-its-chairman-keeps-getting-convicted-of-cr.html - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/07/samsung_sues_matsushita/ - http://www.crn.com.au/News/114322,samsung-sues-polaroid-and-westinghouse-over-patent-infringement.aspx - http://www.cn-c114.net/578/a294176.html

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by Palpatine_li · 2011-09-09 06:50 · Score: 1

9 months' research for a rounded rectangle. Jobs must really be a sadist to his designers that hard.

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by chrisj_0 · 2011-09-09 06:51 · Score: 1

you mad bro?

Prior art by Solandri · 2011-09-09 06:52 · Score: 3, Informative

For those of you who think Samsung copied Apple merely because the Tab and iPad look similar, look again.

Re:Prior art by blair1q · 2011-09-09 07:08 · Score: 1

Apparently, Samsung's lawyers are not that bright.
Re:Prior art by Henriok · 2011-09-09 07:43 · Score: 1

Well, think again. Apple's design patent is from 2004: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/13/apple_tablet_mac/

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Prior art by toriver · 2011-09-09 07:54 · Score: 1

I take it this "solandri" dude contacted the Samsung legal team with his amazing discovery?
No?
Then what was the point?
Re:Prior art by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-09 08:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not a design patent, but a design trademark. And as with all trademarks, you can register it but it does not take effect - nor have the ability to limit other's use - until it is used in commerce (you can't squat on trademarks - you have to use them). Since Samsung started using similar designs in 2006 - well before Apple used the design trademark - Samsung should be exempt from enforcement. I'm sure that's part of what Samsung will argue - and also why the Dutch court found the exact opposite of the German court.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:05 · Score: 1

Wow that's a deadringer for the ipad
Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:58 · Score: 0

Funny how the iPad and the Tab look a LOT more similar than the resemblance that either bear to the photo frame.
Re:Prior art by DinDaddy · 2011-09-10 09:27 · Score: 1

True. But it does invalidate the GGGP's claim that Apple didn't consider the shape until they had seen Samsung's picture frame in 2006.
Re:Prior art by Henriok · 2011-09-12 01:25 · Score: 1

A picture frame from Samsung isn't a computing device, so there was no trademark infringement prior to the iPad.

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -

You don't hear them by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:53 · Score: 0

You don't hear the people who are happing they're just busy playing.

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:54 · Score: 0

Hey, "God" called and want his rectangular shape back. No one of the world is allowed to use it.

I really hope your USPTO is very much worthy for a patent. The Galaxy Tab doesn't break anything in common sense that is worth patent.

The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by manekineko2 · 2011-09-09 06:56 · Score: 2

I read about this originally in this Techcrunch article:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/09/apple-ftw-german-court-upholds-galaxy-tab-10-1-sales-ban/

In it, they link to the design in question, Community Design 000181607 for the iPad:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!

Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 07:07 · Score: 1

Wow. I'll bet if the judge had seen that document he would have decided differently!
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by manekineko2 · 2011-09-09 07:30 · Score: 1

I realize you're trolling this story making a ton of posts (10 at the time of my post, all trolls) ridiculing anyone that has bad things to say about Apple, but your response is completely nonsensical to mine, making it not even an amusing troll.
The judge obviously did see this document, as it is purported to be the Community Design (what people are calling patents) in question around which this case revolves.
The judge has decided that, "Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer." This case establishes that it doesn't matter if the screen's aspect ratio is different, the OS is different, etc. minimalist all-screen tablet is Apple's property.
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 08:05 · Score: 1

I only ridicule those who think they have a better grasp of European and German law than German judges.
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by Joce640k · 2011-09-09 08:49 · Score: 1

Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!
Wow! This makes all the dumb patents look insignificant.
I'm going out today to register rectangular bricks. I'll be able to sue every builder in the world for using my design.

--
No sig today...
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by Pieroxy · 2011-09-09 09:28 · Score: 1

But... but... That's everyone around here !

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by Ster · 2011-09-09 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):
It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)
-Ster
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by manekineko2 · 2011-09-09 14:13 · Score: 1

I definitely think Samsung ripped off a lot Apple's design.
However, none of those elements are relevant to the case at hand, Germany's ban of the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which is based on the Community Design I linked to, which depicts a rounded rectangle with a screen.
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by agendi · 2011-09-10 00:03 · Score: 1

wow, without the dimensions on it, it could be argued that those designs could be a Sony or Samsung LCD TV, digital photo frame or even a car GPS device.. While Apple is feeling lucky they should try to get them banned from imports as well since the iPhone/pad can be used for each of those scenarios.

--
I just can't be bothered.
Re:The relevant piece of so-called "IP" by Shazback · 2011-09-11 00:27 · Score: 1

Whilst there are aspects of similarity, I feel a lot of these claims are tenuous at best.

Hardware (only the iPad-Galaxy Tab) : Handheld electronic device, rounded corners, grey/black/silver, with a screen on the front, black borders above and below the screen... Wait, what's different from all those shitty e-photo display things that you can buy? They're not tablets, but Apple's design patent doesn't specify any connectivity or any application capacities. As for the rectangular form, it's hardly an innovation (ever since the Dynabook handheld rectangular electronic devices have precedent)... So what's the "innovation" that Apple wants to protect? Black borders? I can understand Apple want to protect their design, and as such, I believe that if Samsung made a tablet that was closer to the iPad in ratio and size, it would be a stronger claim. But the Galaxy Tab has extra buttons on the bottom, a different size ratio, a huge "SAMSUNG" logo on top, a different back material... I believe the main problem in this case is that the Community Design granted to Apple is much, much too broad, and less that the Galaxy Tab creates confusion or imitates unfairly the iPad.

Interface :
- Phone icon : Similar (excessively) to Motorola and Nokia's "handset" icons on their phones since the early 1990s. White on green? Skype has that since 2000... Can Skype go after Apple for this icon? Green-Red (on-off) is a deep-rooted logical connection most people around the world share, and the outline of phones in this manner is also nothing new. Samsung's rounded square icon is all that I feel brings it closer to Apple's icon than Skype's. The background colour is closer to Skype's. Can Skype go after Samsung for this icon? IMO again the problem is that Apple was awarded a design that is neither new nor unique.
- Messaging icon : it's not a rectangle, it's not a white bubble on a green background... End of story. If I create a design patent that specifies it's a blue bubble inside a green rectangle on a red background, well if someone makes a red bubble on a black background, I don't have any standing for claiming design imitation, unless they intend to trick customers into believing their icon represents my service. Samsung isn't claiming to imitate Apple's iPhone messaging system any more than it imitates early SMS systems, so I can't see it being a case of consumer deception, ergo no claim.
- Photo icon : Yes, it's a stylized flower... If you know. Even then, the images are so different it'd be like Monet's estate claiming Gauguin's paintings should be removed from auctions because they both include flowers. Samsung's design includes features that are superposed to the flower, unlike Apple's, the overall colour scheme is different (no blue, black or grey)
- Settings icon : Seriously? It's a gear. They've been used since well before the iPhone to represent settings or preferences. One is blue, the other is grey. the styles are different (more steampunk on Apple's, more "weird" on Samsung's).
- Notes icon : It's a notepad that fills the whole icon. Samsung's is more like a day planner. Same colours, same "feel" (paper)... But it's a notepad. Samsung's is more like a post-it or a day calendar. Similar enough, but I can't say I find it to be a stunning example of innovation or design. It's like a website featuring a shopping cart to indicate "this way to pay". Sure, another website can represent their cart differently, but there's going to be limits pretty quick. IMO, Samsung's design is similar, but I would merely ask Samsung to change the background of their icon to make it acceptable.
- Contacts icon : A... contact book. See above. When it was just phone contacts, Samsung and other companies used a book with a phone icon on it. Now, it records more (including photos, contact details, e-mail...) so the front logo was changed to represent a person. The person isn't unique, it's the same kind of head & shoulders outline that Skype has been using since 2000. So... yes

Samsung Innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 06:56 · Score: 0

As much as I like competition, you can't help but look at this before and after pics and conclude that yes, Samsung is copying Apple design and this is after they had to change the first version since it was basically a clone of the iPad. Now whether or not that should be patentable in the first place is another topic: Samsung before and after Apple iPhone

Re:Samsung Innovation by hardtofindanick · 2011-09-09 07:12 · Score: 1

I don't agree with the before/after images. Advances in technology and reduction in tech and hardware prices will be major factor in those designs. Do you really think Samsung made 1 inch tablets because they thought it would look nice? Once you move to touchscreens, guess what, you dont need arrow buttons on the device anymore.
Re:Samsung Innovation by chaboud · 2011-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

You have to look at the continuum of design. *Everything* has been able to get thinner, get simpler, and get smoother.
We can mill aluminum parts less expensively now, have materials and adhesives that allow for tighter construction and integration, have fractal antenna developments that allow for *far* more flexible radio and antenna placement, and have new technologies surrounding touch.
Design is evolution. It's constantly happening, and elements of products from all vendors find their way into the designs of the competition. Nobody is saying that Jonathan Ive is anything less than an iconic designer, but a rectangle with rounded corners just isn't new.
http://solandri.com/misc/ipad-tab.html
Re:Samsung Innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 07:39 · Score: 0

Apple before and after the LG Prada.

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by MightyMartian · 2011-09-09 07:02 · Score: 1

Since Apple has done precisely that before, maybe we should ask some of the people Apple nicked designs off of.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Someones hand is in the cookie jar. by C_Kode · 2011-09-09 07:03 · Score: 1

Based on what the judge wrote, it sounds to me like he has his hand in the Apple's cookie jar.

OS News has more info on this.

Re:Someones hand is in the cookie jar. by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 07:12 · Score: 1

You must be right.
German judges are so well known for their corruptibility, after all.

Stupid by roman_mir · 2011-09-09 07:07 · Score: 1

This is stupid. All the Germans who want one, will buy one over the Internet or will just buy one on their next trip to the neighboring Switzerland or some other place.

What a stupid thing to do.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Gene Roddenberry's estate by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-09-09 07:21 · Score: 1

Whoever controls Gene Roddenberry's estate should sue apple.

Re:Gene Roddenberry's estate by Henriok · 2011-09-09 07:45 · Score: 1

Yes! That looks anything like an iPad! .

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Gene Roddenberry's estate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:58 · Score: 0

Totally different, it's all touch, not a single physical button.

It shipped after the iPad by Quila · 2011-09-09 07:22 · Score: 1

And from conception it was supposed to be a big iPod Touch anyway, so they're still copying Apple.

Look at more than just the front of that frame by Quila · 2011-09-09 07:29 · Score: 2

From any other angle it looks wildly different than an iPad.

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.003.082411.jpg

This is why anti-Apple sites only show you the front of the frame, to make you think the whole thing looked like an iPad. The patent does not just concern the front, but the whole design together, which must be copied in order to get an injunction. And that's what Samsung did.

Re:Look at more than just the front of that frame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 13:41 · Score: 0

This is why anti-Apple sites only show you the front of the frame, to make you think the whole thing looked like an iPad. The patent does not just concern the front, but the whole design together, which must be copied in order to get an injunction.
Apparently, that's not the case according to the German judge (and apparently Apple):

According to Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann, Samsung “didn’t keep enough distance from the Apple design.” While the back of the tablets are quite different, the front part of the Galaxy Tab is “nearly identical” to the iPad.

(Also quoted here and here.)

Try this image showing Samsung's direction by Quila · 2011-09-09 07:32 · Score: 1

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg

We know what Samsung thought phones and tablets should look like before and after the iPhone and iPad.

Re:Try this image showing Samsung's direction by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-09 08:53 · Score: 1

You mean before and after the LG Prada - which the iPhone wonderfully copied...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Try this image showing Samsung's direction by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 11:46 · Score: 1

You mean this LG Prada that looks much more like a Palm or WinCE based organizer? The LG Prada that hit the market 2 years after Apple's design patent? The same LG Prada that LG claimed Apple copied the design for the iPhone from, but doesn't look like an iPhone, has more than the all important "single button" on the front, and that LG never sued over (they just claimed the iPhone copied it). That LG Prada?

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Try this image showing Samsung's direction by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-09 14:22 · Score: 1

The LG Prada that is not a tablet - and thus not affected but the CD for the tablet, the one that was universally recognized as the progenitor to the iPhone. And it's curious that you highlight the "all important single button" - since that's what Samsung is MISSING on theirs. So how can it be the same?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Try this image showing Samsung's direction by X.25 · 2011-09-09 15:33 · Score: 1

http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg
Re:Try this image showing Samsung's direction by arose · 2011-09-10 11:33 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the iPhone 4, a fine example of a Palm/WinCE handheld. Eat crow, eat it all up. LG proved to be a better company than Apple, you can hardly blame them for that.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

What a bunch of whiners! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:35 · Score: 0

The majority of these commenters have reached a conclusion that differs with most of the courts hearing the Apple vs. Samsung cases. Could it be that you're wrong? Nah. When faced with facts that don't match your reality, use sarcasm. Who is it that suffers from a reality distortion field?

Re:What a bunch of whiners! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:17 · Score: 0

I suppose if you received an injunction requiring you to perform a forward aerial half turn every alternate step, you would be happy to oblige? There is a limit to how silly decisions a court can make without being openly ridiculed.

No suprise here mein friends by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 07:50 · Score: 0

closet nazis stick together.

This is not the "real" case by Zoxed · 2011-09-09 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

My understanding (but IANAL and my German is poor) from the judgement http://www.lg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/presse/pressemitteilungen_ab_2009/13-11.pdf (small PDF) and also from this article http://www.chip.de/news/Galaxy-Tab-10.1-Verkaufsverbot-endgueltig-bestaetigt_50819592.html is that this is not a decision on the patent, but simple the rejection of Samsungs attempt to have the provisional injunction lifted. The real case is due maybe mid-2012 !

Re:This is not the "real" case by Acron · 2011-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1

Given the product life-cycles in this market, the scheduling of the case would appear to be tantamount to a ruling for Apple. By that time next year we'll be looking at a whole new generation of hardware, either on the market or on the way to the market.
Re:This is not the "real" case by aiken_d · 2011-09-09 08:36 · Score: 1

Shhh. That kind of perspective is not welcome here. It's all about the outrage and gnashing of teeth, mere facts shouldn't get in the way.

--
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Re:This is not the "real" case by Rich0 · 2011-09-09 08:37 · Score: 1

This is the problem with the courts.
An provisional injunction that prevents you from selling something for a year is effectively a judgment. What, is the court going to say Ok, we were wrong, Samsung can go back in time and sell their tablets? No, they'll probably say "ok, in 2013 you can go ahead and sell your 2011 tablet" when the product isn't even being manufactured any longer...
Re:This is not the "real" case by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:11 · Score: 2, Informative

This is the problem with the courts.
An provisional injunction that prevents you from selling something for a year is effectively a judgment. What, is the court going to say Ok, we were wrong, Samsung can go back in time and sell their tablets? No, they'll probably say "ok, in 2013 you can go ahead and sell your 2011 tablet" when the product isn't even being manufactured any longer...
This is a problem you can't get rid of, because it cuts both ways. Assume there exist cases where the court will ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiff and grant a permanent injunction. If there was no such thing as a provisional injunction, the defendant in such a case could use legal delay tactics and render the court's ultimate judgement irrelevant: by the time it comes, it won't matter any more. In the meantime, the plaintiff will have suffered the harm they sought to prevent through legal action.
This is why most legal systems have preliminary or provisional injunctions. Both sides are required to give quick arguments, and if the court thinks there is a strong reason to justify it (i.e. a good reason to believe the plaintiff will prevail), they'll grant a provisional injunction. (In the US at least, I believe judges are also supposed to consider the degree and severity of harm the plaintiff will suffer if a preliminary injunction is not granted, and the plaintiff is expected to make a convincing case for this.)
Re:This is not the "real" case by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 10:08 · Score: 0

On the other hand Apple will have to pay all damages to Samsung if their injunction is not upheld in the main case.

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by toriver · 2011-09-09 07:52 · Score: 1

Such as? The phone that turned out to have been launched after the iPhone announcement? Or maybe some photoshop job posted to some blog somewhere? The myth that Apple store the GUI from Xerox when they in reality had a contract?

Nope by Udo+Schmitz · 2011-09-09 08:00 · Score: 2

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-picture-frame-was-no-ipad

Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:15 · Score: 0

My god. So many Apple fanbois. While some of the claims are true, the rest is: "Apple good, Samsung bad!"
Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 21:52 · Score: 0

And if you look at the 2005 phones and PMPs, they also all looked more or less the same. They should have put some pictures of competitors devices, to show the state of the market. Fortunately, there was no litigious company claiming they own the candybar phone design and blocking every strong competitor.
That's obvious Apple leaded the popular change in design of both phones and PMPs. Now the line have to be drawn between protection and abuse.

Hi Bonch, SuperKendall,Etc. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:07 · Score: 0

Your constant trolling of Slashdot with multiple accounts is really working!

Everyone LOVES APPLE now!

LOL

Re:Hi Bonch, SuperKendall,Etc. by wsxyz · 2011-09-09 08:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, I set up all these accounts 10-15 years ago in preparation for just this occasion.

DESIGN patent by Quila · 2011-09-09 08:13 · Score: 1

It's about looks. It's more akin to trademark than a functional patent.

The car equivalent is Mercedes describing the look of the SLS in in a design patent, which Mercedes has done. Then Kia comes out with a car that looks almost exactly like it. That would face an injunction just as Samsung has.

As it is the Japanese have been skirting the European car maker design patents very closely over the last couple decades, borrowing one or two parts of the looks of European cars, but never going far enough (AFAIK) to infringe on a design patent.

Geordi La Forge would beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:13 · Score: 0

The original prop designers for Star Trek should just sue Apple and end all this nonsense. I recall a number of devices from Next Gen that looked and behaved remarkably like the iPad; rounded edges and all. Somehow, I doubt Steve Jobs offered them anything for the IP.

Re:Easy to fix! by hazydave · 2011-09-09 08:24 · Score: 1

There are no laws against copying ideas. Legit patents, sure, but not ideas. And given all the prior art, it's clear the only reason Apple has any design patents on the iPad is that the shape had so much obvious non-patent prior art, and was so simple, no one bothered to try before Apple did it.

--
-Dave Haynie

Oh, that half-empty Apple! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 08:31 · Score: 0

Come on, iSlashdot, not again!

Remember: EU is not a single country. German courts CANNOT rule for the entire Europe. And of course, a minor detail: EU is not the entire Europe.

So. They ruled Germany cannot make even more money by selling the Samsung tablet. Their loss. The most imports in EU come through Netherlands, anyway, and Samsung has no problem there. To my European fellows, you will still be able to buy your Galaxy tablet everywhere, so skip these pro-Apple articles invading these friendly boards.

To the Germans and their impartial judges: come on, rounded corners, really...?

Prior art by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2011-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1

http://www.amazon.com/Archos-32-Internet-Tablet-Android/dp/B002OL2PLU

Archos 5 Internet Tablet was released September 15th 2009 with android Apple iPad April 2010. Archos should sue Apple to block the iPad in Europe. Jobisan Fanbois starting to see how this could get out of hand? no? figures

Germany the home of the Apple Fan Boys! by gubers33 · 2011-09-09 08:54 · Score: 1

I think we know were the real Apple Fan Boys live!

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.

Hold on a second. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:01 · Score: 0

I thought Germany was opposed to cults and wacky pseudo-religions (like Scientology)?

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 09:23 · Score: 0

Or perhaps this: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

what did apple really invent on the ipad? by unique_parrot · 2011-09-09 09:23 · Score: 1

o.k. they made a small tablet, but in my opinium that's it.nothing new here... too bad i don't have a patent on a device that stands an four round wheels attatched to the body like a car thing...

Good by makubesu · 2011-09-09 09:47 · Score: 1

now hopefully somebody will actually make a tablet that looks good.

Inconsequential Ruling by oxdas · 2011-09-09 10:06 · Score: 2

Relax, this ruling is inconsequential to the ongoing fight between Samsung and Apple. It won't stop Samsung's products from being distributed in Germany. It doesn't apply to any other country in Europe, and Samsung's distribution center for Europe is in neighboring the Netherlands, so importation and European-wide supply will not be affected. The only case in Europe that mattered was in the Netherlands (which is why Apple sued there first) and the Dutch court already sided with Samsung on all the design issues. Also, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this ruling, as the Dusseldorf court is widely considered the most preferential court in Europe when it comes to patents (and apparently designs as well now). Apple chose this court for a reason.

Re:The RAM issue is deceptive by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 10:18 · Score: 0

You are so right. And DOS needs only 640 kB. An old computer with 640 kB of RAM is therefore better than a Windows Vista PC with 1GB RAM, or a Galaxy Tab 10.1.
The problem is the OS. We all know that DOS > iOS > Android > Ubuntu > Windows Vista.

Re:Suck it, Android fan-idiots by Billly+Gates · 2011-09-09 10:48 · Score: 1

How about you suck it instead being a mac user.

I prefer my freedom

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:The RAM issue is deceptive by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 11:06 · Score: 1

Well, you got at least one thing right. Anything is better than Vista.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

According to the patent by gstrickler · 2011-09-09 11:08 · Score: 1

The formula to calculating the perimeter of a rounded corner rectangle is known as Apple Pi.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

MOD PARENT UP by Namarrgon · 2011-09-09 11:16 · Score: 1

The court has not decided the case yet, only upheld an injunction. It's not permanent, and will be lifted if Samsung wins the case (which could take up to a year), or on appeal.

Samsung can also appeal the injunction right now in a higher court, which might still take a few months. And of course they could settle, or convince Apple to settle with their counter-suit (though that seems unlikely now).

If it takes months though, they may just give up on Germany for now, and come up with a sufficiently different design for their next model.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:MOD PARENT UP by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-09-09 17:37 · Score: 1

Mod parent up, it's all that need be said.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Android fanboys - copy copy copy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:41 · Score: 0

Anyone who doesn't believe that the samsung tab is a copy of the iPad is either blind, in denial, or stupid. Even Samsung hasn't denied it.

you lost the war by Osgeld · 2011-09-09 12:49 · Score: 0

Germany, you do not have jurisdiction over the entire EU, k thanks.

"it has banned Samsung Germany from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 anywhere in Europe."

Re:you lost the war by ninetyninebottles · 2011-09-09 13:44 · Score: 1

Germany, you do not have jurisdiction over the entire EU, k thanks.
No...., but it does have jurisdiction over companies based in Germany regardless of where they are operating, such as Samsung Germany, a subsidiary based in Germany.
Re:you lost the war by Osgeld · 2011-09-09 16:00 · Score: 0

yea thats fine but the article and summary both site that they are banning it from all of Europe, which last time I checked was not just Germany, nor do they have any say so in other countries.
So what if they ban it, Samsung just wont be making their tablets there, and its their foolish loss, but at the end of the day Germany cant tell other countries what they can and can not do nor where they can and can not buy their products.
Its really that simple.
Re:you lost the war by ninetyninebottles · 2011-09-17 03:59 · Score: 1

No...., but it does have jurisdiction over companies based in Germany regardless of where they are operating, such as Samsung Germany, a subsidiary based in Germany.
yea thats fine but the article and summary both site that they are banning it from all of Europe, which last time I checked was not just Germany, nor do they have any say so in other countries.
They have a say in what Samsung Germany, a German company does in the rest of Europe. They haven't banned distribution by other subsidiaries of Samsung, based outside Germany.

So what if they ban it, Samsung just wont be making their tablets there...
The argument that the law should not be enforced because companies will simply do the same thing elsewhere and the money will leave the local economy is a foolish one. Would you apply the same concept to other laws? Should Germany not enforce child labor laws because companies will just go elsewhere and Germany will lose the money? Think it through.
Re:you lost the war by Osgeld · 2011-09-17 04:20 · Score: 1

so the fuck what? Samsung Korea will just sell tablets in Europe, and hello? dumbfuck I dont care what you think of the law, but companies moving away from the local economy over laws happens every fucking day.
look at electronic manufacture, the USA is so restrictive you cant find a fab house anywhere, they are all in china. Look at Amazon who hops states any time someone mentions sales tax, look at GM where the majority of their manufacturing still happens in Mexico where they are not bound to pay as much or care as much about safety ... welcome to 2011 fuck the world as long as we make a buck, you think some pissant country in east Europe is going to even slow down Samsung?

German court didn't review actual devices by oxdas · 2011-09-09 13:04 · Score: 1

According to OSNews, the judge issued the ruling based solely on the 2004 community design and not an actual iPad. Can anyone else confirm this? The 2004 drawings are quite different from the current iPad (although, they are both rectangles). http://www.osnews.com/story/25150/German_Court_Upholds_Injunction_Against_Galaxy_Tab_10_1

sorry, it's even more silly by markhahn · 2011-09-09 14:18 · Score: 2

golly, a phone-call icon that has a phone handset on it. a notebook icon that looks like notebook paper. contact information that looks like a head-and-shoulders of a, um, contact.

apple sucks. they do evil.

Re:sorry, it's even more silly by Your.Master · 2011-09-09 15:04 · Score: 1

Look, I think this case is stupid too, but denying that there are similarities that aren't clearly called-for by the functionality weakens your position.
- That's a white phone handset of the same outdated style on a green background with a similar angle. It is a lot more similar than "they're both obvious phone icons".
- I'll agree that the notebook icon is pretty much different.
- The head-and-shoulders silhouette is not really an unavoidably obvious choice for your contacts. They could have used a rolodex in keeping with the phone and notebook metaphors. They could have used full figure humans. The rest of that icon is completely different but the silhouette is pretty similar and it's not nearly on the same scale of obvious iconography as the phone handset.
Re:sorry, it's even more silly by Rob+Y. · 2011-09-10 08:27 · Score: 1

The only similarity that makes me think they are trying to fool people (or at least to specifically copy Apple) is the bit about the launch bar at the bottom of their phone consisting of 4 icons on a gray background.
There was no reason to go with that configuration - especially since it differs so much from vanilla Android - other than to make their phone 'better' because it's more like an iPhone than all those other Android phones out there. It's pretty obvious that that's what they were doing. Whether it merits an injunction against selling their devices is another issue altogether. And that launch bar similarity doesn't carry over to the Galaxy Tab, which has a more Android-like launcher.

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...

Available next door in Switzerland by theolein · 2011-09-09 15:24 · Score: 1

They are available here in Switzerland, online at arp.ch, I just checked.

The bad guys won again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 16:27 · Score: 0

Sadly...

Easy solution for Samsung... by Eaglehawk · 2011-09-09 18:31 · Score: 1

Ship each Samsung Tab 10.1 with a case that surrounds the unit and rename it 10.2...

Wait a minute, can you get sued for copying someone else's solution to a dumb issue?

-1, Bad analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 19:42 · Score: 0

can you differ between a trademark and a trivial solution? btw, a rounded rectangle and minimalism are some of the basic concepts in industrial design

Samsung Loses? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 23:31 · Score: 0

That's not what Google news says.They say that Samsung cant advertise and that the tablets must come from another branch.So this is NOT a victory for Apple after all,only an inconvenience.Know your facts!

Why slashdot is appalling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 23:58 · Score: 0

4, Interesting talking about patents on a copyright case?

This case is identical to a case of some person flogging imitation sunglasses and bags on a street. If you don't agree that design companies like Ray Ban and Louis Vuitton have a right to defend their copyright, then I wholeheartedly welcome you to restate your argument in this.

Pathetic. That is what it is. I've been seeing astroturfing abound, pushing opinion on people "Apple are doing this with their patents", fuck me, at least political blogs will dig deeper at times, but look at this, technology and it is appalling. This isn't Apple's fault, this isn't about patents, this is about a high profile competitor ripping off their design and marketing.

This isn't about consumer choice, it is protecting consumer brands. Want to make it an argument about that, THEN DO SO.

Pathetic, all of you, slashdot, reddit, jesus don't get me started on the astroturfed reddit. Lowlife idiot wannabe internet workers getting paid slave wages to post thousands of comments a day to reddit under different usernames, also to twitter, reposting, facebook. So sad.

You'll see the same patterns in comments if you have any clue.

Look and feel differs in the US by voss · 2011-09-10 03:57 · Score: 1

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) [US appeals court]

Actually you cannot copyright or patent "look and feel" in the US. What Apple could
do is claim the appearance of its products are a trademark also if something is so virtually identical
in appearance as to confuse the consumer that also could be a copyright violation. Mere look and feel
is not close enough.

Xerox claimed that if Microsoft violated anyone copyrights it was theirs(see Xerox PARC) not apples since
Apple copied features of its mac OS from Xerox(they had even visited Xerox to see it).

Re:Look and feel differs in the US by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-10 04:22 · Score: 1

Yepp,
however as I tried to point out: the situation here in europe is a bit different.
And the examples you bring are not that simple either. After all Windows had not that much in common with the Mac OS or the XEROX prior art, except the suage of a mouse and clicking on the screen.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:The RAM issue is deceptive by Quila · 2011-09-10 09:13 · Score: 1

Except iOS > Android, so more functionality and better with a smaller memory requirement.

Quite disingenuous comparing to DOS.

LG screamed about suing by Quila · 2011-09-12 00:09 · Score: 1

But didn't. Obvious reason: they didn't have a case.

Look at them side by side. The Prada and the original iPhone look quite different.

The Galaxy S and the original iPhone look almost the same.

Re:LG screamed about suing by arose · 2011-09-12 06:28 · Score: 1

The Prada and the iPhone 4 look almost the same too, as per the link you seem to not how clicked. It's just so amusing seeing some apologist bitching about its antiquated design, when Apple decided to imitate it instead of going with the original iPhone look (though from the front the Prada is very similar to the original iPhone). But the Prada is only one of the things that show that the iPhone design didn't just come out of thin air, the N810 released only a few months after the iPhone is strikingly similar, yet is a clear evolution from the N800. There are many more, but those two are interesting because they show that several companies very developing very similar devices at the time, yet Apple is the one who claims to have come up with it all by themselves and have sole dominion over it.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

Slashdot Mirror

German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

314 comments