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 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 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 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 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 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!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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: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.

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!

"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 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 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.

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 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: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?"

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 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: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: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 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?"

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: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.

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 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.)

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

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: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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

43 of 314 comments (clear)