German Court Upholds Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab

With his first posted submission, ctusch writes "It seems Samsung has finally lost the battle against Apple in Germany. Today the district court in Düsseldorf ruled that Samsung must not sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Furthermore, it has banned Samsung Germany from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 anywhere in Europe."

Comments

Apple

[Haedrian]

Driving innovation in the field of shapes forward.

Re:Apple

[wsxyz]

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

[Haedrian]

Its a ROUNDED rectangle.

I wrote the innovation in allcaps so you wouldn't miss it.

Re:Apple

[wsxyz]

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

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

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

[kelemvor4]

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...

[recoiledsnake]

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/

Re:Can anyone tell me...

[uniquename72]

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.

Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Apple!

[sharkey]

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?

Re:I don't understand

[ZigZagJoe]

It doesn't; they're banning the german branch from exporting them to the rest of europe.

Finally?

[SwedishChef]

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.

"Minimalistic Design"

[RightSaidFred99]

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"

[toriver]

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.

Prior art

[Solandri]

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

Re:Prior art

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:I don't understand

[RenderSeven]

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

[Zoxed]

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:The relevant piece of so-called "IP"

[Ster]

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

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