German Appeals Court Confirms Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban

New submitter Killer Panda sends word that a German Appeals Court has upheld the injunction prohibiting sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Apple convinced lower courts to issue and uphold the injunction last year by making the case that Samsung's devices "slavishly" copied the iPhone and iPad. "Samsung, which is Apple's supplier as well as a competitor, has been trying to have the German decision overturned while also seeking other means to fight Apple. It redesigned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for the German market only and named it Galaxy Tab 10.1N to get around the sales ban. Apple challenged the reworked version but a German court last month rejected Apple's claims in a preliminary judgment." The European Union announced some more bad news for Samsung: they'll be investigating the company to see whether its use of patent lawsuits is illegally hindering other companies' use of standardized 3G technology. "Under EU patent rules, a company that holds patents for standardized products is required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price."

Comments

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[blind biker]

Granted, I only read TFS, but to my defense, I got so disgusted that all energy left my body in an instant.

Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

all energy left my body in an instant.

Wow, that means you must be a really cool guy.

Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[alexborges]

Whats the matter? You stiff?

Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[toriver]

Don't expect a reply, he turned a cold shoulder at you.

Princess Syndrome

[killfixx]

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

I've seen this behaviour time and again, if it's pretty or popular, it's easier to let all manner of misdeeds slide.

Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

Isn't there some manner of oversight for something like this.

If my son were to insult another student repeatedly, without offending the teacher, that later resulted in said student having a violent outburst, not only would my son be brought up on bullying charges (legit in my state), but so would the teacher for ignoring the bullying.

But corporations are fully allowed to do this without repercussion.

That upsets me.

Shame on them.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Synerg1y]

Hmm, bad analogy, both Apple & Samsung are geeks and the popular kid here :)

Two geeks offer services... one geek is ousted and leaves: the other geek abuses power and controls pricing, the ousted geek refuses to come back and a new geek sees opportunity and steps up.

On that note, Samsung isn't exactly innocent...

Re:Princess Syndrome

[bigbangnet]

Yes there is a way. Stop buying their products. Make them see the negative sales and profit for some time. That will make them think on their next decision. But giving the intelligence of people (some...not all) they will ignore what Apple do and encourage them by buying apple products. might not be the perfect solution but think about it. if your customers stop buying your products because they think negatively of you...wouldn't you change your attitude towards others before its too late ?

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Lunix Nutcase]

You do realize that Samsung has a far longer history of offensive patent suits than Apple, right? They aren't some "innocent geek" being beaten down by Apple. And in this particular case the EU is absolutely correct in going after them over their attempted abuse of their 3g patents. Sorry, but just because Samsung is an Android manufacturer does not mean their actions are correct or legal regardless of how you feel about Apple's lawsuits against them.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[noh8rz2]

I think you're projecting a little bit here. I take it you didn't have the happiest childhood.

The fact is, many of apple's legal claims have been upheld by a multitude of courts in all sort of jurisdictions. Perhaps it's not patent trolling after all? Perhaps Samsung is the real offender here, and is getting pwned around the world because of it.

I think at is point we can apply occham's razor.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Karganeth]

I don't know how you run things, but corporations are not people in the EU.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[idontgno]

Good point. Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Obviously, then, Apple is right.

Here's a news flash: courts get this kind of crap wrong. All the time.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[spire3661]

When you actually do work, its hard to ignore using the best available tool for the job, regardless of the politics involved. I dont have time nor energy to take an ideological stand on everything. At some point we all have real work to get done and quite honestly a truly useable smartphone and tablet GREATLY enhance my work performance. Im going to pick and use the best one that fits my workflow and needs, I dont have the luxury of taking sides. Taking a stand is great, but I have bigger fish to fry then voting insignificantly with my wallet.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[interval1066]

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

And the German Court's solution to all this reminds me of the "Bells" episode of Black Adder; When Edmund consults the Wise Woman on how to keep his love for "Bob" secret for fear of (mistakenly) being outed, she gives him three options: 1) kill Bob; 2) commit suicide; or 3) go ahead and sleep with Bob and, to ensure no one ever finds out, kill everyone in the entire world.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[ktappe]

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

If you're going to use that analogy, make it accurate. The most popular girl made it well known what dress she would be wearing to the dance, and then another girl blatantly and deliberately wears the same dress to the same dance. Popular girl seems justified in bitch-slapping the copycat.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

No, shame on you! You represent the USA and the USA represents you, those douchebags you have in power are there because of you, your family and your friends. You had a choice and this is it, whether by action or inaction this is your fault!

In the EU, people actually try to fight it. In the US, they sue eachother and see who files for bankruptcy first. You have power and used it to force those idiotic laws on the rest of the world.

You're free as long as you have money. Freedom my ass.

Thanks a shitload.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[noh8rz2]

C'mon, let's be reasonable. A court may get things wrong, which is why we have a robust system of appeals processes and multiple overlapping jurisdictions. But you have to admit that there's a growing consensus among the courts world over that Samsung was a bad boy. The issue is not black&white, and there's no clear winner, but maybe it's time to turn down the apple is teh evilzzz! vitriol.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting AC because I'm at work and I just have to say something in response to this...)

Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Uh, they're being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour because they abused FRAND patents. They're being investigated because they acted anti-competitively.

You may not like Apple but, for the love of gawd, pull your head out of your nether-regions and admit the truth - Samsung is abusing FRAND patents which _IS_ anti-competitive behaviour. If Apple wasn't involved, would you honestly be siding with Samsung on this? No - you'd be raking them over the coals for abuse of the patent system.

Wow. It hurts my brain how blind people insist on being simply because they like (or, in this case, dislike) one side or the other... People claim Apple fanboys can be fanatical...

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Slashdot Assistant]

The analogy really doesn't work, but yes, I've seen those 80s movies. Not to worry! The geek will stage an electro concert, or some strange shit like that, which will get the school on their side - with of course some hot cheerleader chick who all along had a soft spot for geeks.

There is no geeky underdog in this real-life story. Instead what we have are two corporate behemoths, slugging it out - neither of which come out of this spotless.

If I missed the point, and this analogy isn't based on 80s movies, then please at least teach your son that the past shapes us, but it should not be a prison. Move on, and understand that peaking at high school isn't always a good thing. The princess is probably now just one of many fairly mundane people, or loaded up with a bunch of kids with more fathers than most of us have limbs. You are among friends!

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Good analogy. Whoever downvoted it deserves a bitch slap themselves...

Re:Princess Syndrome

[dimko]

because of tar, arm, i mean, people like u we got what we got. we got microsft and apple and MPAA and similar stuff. GET A SPINE. Frugs can make your life better, at least your perception of life, which actually counts, buy you dont abuse them. Same with tools, some people have spine and support competition from fear of monopoly. Thats why I wont buy ever again nokia, thats why i have never bought and never will buy windows(bundled copy with laptop is not really buying it, either way i wont buy laptop with windows on it, and if i do I will refuse EULA and demand money back)or any apple products ever, nor fckn sony.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[dimko]

sure, because Samsung was bully it gives Apple full rights to kill it after all, noone will be harmed if Samsung dies out. We really dont need competition. I enjoyed to hear news of Apple growing, but not anymore. They are like slaves who suddenly became masters.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess... because English is so popular and widely-spoken, you're rejecting that monopoly too?

Re:Princess Syndrome

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

But giving the intelligence of people (some...not all) they will ignore what Apple do and encourage them by buying apple products.

Obsessing over sensationalist headlines is not an indicator of intelligence.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behavior."

Everyone? you mean samsung.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[ktappe]

"Troll"? Really? Do you people even have the slightest clue what that rating means? My comment was exactly on topic and accurate. Please LEARN HOW TO MODERATE.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[dimko]

No, because it actually makes world better. Human kind needs one language. It's only monopoly I can think of that brings good result for society generally.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[toriver]

Kill Samsung, the largest corporation in Korea? This is just one product in one market. Samsung is just trying the same "we want more than the FRAND fee" shit that Nokia pulled right after the iPhone's launch - and that was even without the "excuse" of having been sued themselves.

Re:Princess Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

That was more a dig at the awful writing in your original post.

When defending yourself...

[Theaetetus]

... you still have to be reasonable.

Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

If the popular kid abuses the geek, and the geek comes to school with a pipe bomb, you better believe the geek is going to the principal's office... Or worse.
In this case, regardless of the merits of Apple's design patent infringement suit, Samsung fought back in a way they aren't allowed to: they helped establish the 3G standard, apparently withheld certain key patents from the licensing pool for the standard, and are now asserting those patents against a pool member. That's an almost textbook antitrust violation in this country, and Europe apparently has a similar law.

Re:When defending yourself...

[scot4875]

Except that Apple chose to ignore licensing the 3G F/RAND patents for the first several years of the existence of the iPhone, and is now complaining to the courts that they should just be able to pay the same fees that everyone else gets.

So, if this plays out in Apple's favor, the logical end result is that it's the wiser thing for everybody to NEVER license F/RAND patents; worst case for them is that years down the road they might get sued and have to pay the same thing they would have paid anyway, best case is that nobody notices/bothers to take them to court and they get away with it without paying anything.

--Jeremy

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was fully prepared to pay FRAND licensing. Samsung was being the douchebag by trying to essentially extort a cross licensing agreement with Apple to use patents covered under FRAND. Apple rightfully refused to bend over. Samsung had ZERO right to change the rules. Apple let the case run its course through the court system until it was agreed that Samsung was in the wrong for pulling such a stunt.

So don't try to spin this story in a way that makes it sound like Apple was trying to purposely avoid paying FRAND. They were fully prepared to pay since day one. Samsung was just being a whiny little bitch that thought it could get ahead by extortion.

Re:When defending yourself...

[EasyTarget]

...makes it sound like Apple was trying to purposely avoid paying FRAND

Yes; this is because that is what they were trying to do.

Just like they never paid Xerox for thieving their original GUI ideas 25 years ago; now they wont pay Samsung for thieving their 3G ideas too. They prefer to pay lawyers instead of innovators.

Re:When defending yourself...

[Telvin_3d]

Except that Apple chose to ignore licensing the 3G F/RAND patents for the first several years of the existence of the iPhone, and is now complaining to the courts that they should just be able to pay the same fees that everyone else gets.

Sort of... but not really. Almost none of the big players pay standard F/RAND patent fees. In almost all cases Samsung (or other holders of equivalent licenses) cuts a side deal where in exchange for the fees being waived or lowered Samsung gets to cross-license other patents. Nokia and Motorola do similar things with standards based on their patents. This is business as usual.

So it was a hell of shock when Apple came to market with a completely new product without having ever approached the license holders to set up this sort of agreement. It was just assumed that any company would prefer to do a licensing agreement than pay the standard fees. It had never even crossed their minds that Apple would (or could) just pay the fees up front instead. It's one of the reasons you hear people talking about Apple bringing the iPhone to market before they had negotiated the licenses. Apple didn't need to negotiate anything because standard F/RAND licenses are automatic, the same way you don't need to negotiate before accepting the GPL license on a piece of software. It's just that everyone does negotiate for a better deal in exchange for concessions. Apple didn't ignore the F/RAND licensing, they ignored Samsung's attempts to refuse payment and cut an alternate deal.

And Sumsung doesn't want the license fee. They would much rather have Apple's patent and IP concessions. So they are in the position of trying to force Apple not to accept the publicly available license terms. That's why they are getting their knuckles rapped by the courts here. No different than if a company that released their code under the GPL and then started trying to sue companies who were using it according to the license. Doesn't matter what the other company might have done to provoke them, it's still not going to fly in front of a judge.

Re:When defending yourself...

[bennomatic]

Except they did pay Xerox, and even hired some of the engineers who led the way on PARC's GUI initiatives. Don't reinvent history.

Re:When defending yourself...

[poetmatt]

This is a two way street.

while they may go after samsung, having this move forward will also put a lot of strength into Barnes and Noble's claims against Microsoft.

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww, man, he was an easy target, just let him troll! Who needs evidence when spewing FUD is nice? Join in! Didn't you know, Apple also kills babies?

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

A serious one thanks, I have seen this stated a few times, but I have never seen any facts backing it up. It is probably just wishful thinking by Apple apologists.

Re:When defending yourself...

[GoatCheez]

I was under the impression that Apple did not wanted to only pay the licensing from "here-on-out" and get away with not paying any fees for the past sales, whereas everyone else either has paid or had a licensing agreement since the beginning. Samsung wanted to use the back-pay as a leverage point to negotiate a cross-licensing agreement, which I do believe is perfectly legal. It is my understanding that if Apple were willing to pay the normal licensing fee for all sales current and old that there would be no issue and Samsung would agree to the deal, however Apple doesn't want to pay the fees for prior sales. This has been my impression from following the cases at least.

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 insightful with absolutely no proof provided?? Please, fanboys, a real stretch, even for you guys...

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they didn't, they had some unrelated financial dealings that people love to interpret as paying.

Re:When defending yourself...

[jrumney]

Apple was fully prepared to pay FRAND licensing. Samsung was being the douchebag by trying to essentially extort a cross licensing agreement with Apple to use patents covered under FRAND. Apple rightfully refused to bend over. Samsung had ZERO right to change the rules. Apple let the case run its course through the court system until it was agreed that Samsung was in the wrong for pulling such a stunt.

Apple offered to pay FRAND licensing for only some of Samsung's patents, and only covering devices sold in the Netherlands where the case was being heard. That doesn't sound like fully prepared to me. And having made a cross licensing deal with Nokia a few months before, as well as paying Nokia a premium for access to their FRAND patents, who is being the douchebag now by refusing to do the same deal with other phone manufacturers? Cross licensing is what keeps technology moving forward. Taking your toys and going home is good for nobody in the long run.

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice attempt at spreading false information. All that time you have to sit down and write nonsense, you could instead spend that time actually doing research so you don't come across as a troll, or a clueless individual, or both. Sheer laziness on your part.

Apple did pay Xerox. There was even a book about how it went down in detail. Perhaps you've heard it? It's called "Steve Jobs".

Seriously epic fail.

Re:When defending yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple simply wanted to pay the FRAND fees. Samsung wanted to cut a deal similar to "How's about we don't charge you FRAND fees and instead just let us do some cross-licensing deal?"

Apple didn't want to do that, nor were they obligated to. Many companies try to cut a better deal and that is perfectly acceptable, but they are under no obligation to accept a "cheaper" deal. If they would just prefer to pay the fees, they allowed to do that.

Apple simply wanted to pay the fees. They had no interest in doing a cross-licensing agreement. Samsung didn't want Apple's money someone at Samsung came up with the hugely stupid idea of suing Apple for "not paying" FRAND.

Samsung is going to get reamed for this, and rightfully so. I hope Samsung gets the hammer dropped hard on their head.

Re:When defending yourself...

[toriver]

Apart from repeating the debunked lie, you should also know that ideas cannot be "stolen", only spread.

Xerox chose not to patent the GUI and mouse. That means they chose not to protect it. Apple popularized it instead of letting it remain the clunky stuff Xerox came up with.

Re:When defending yourself...

[cheesybagel]

You mean the clunky stuff Douglas Englebart came up with.

Posting this comment from a computer with a mouse that has more than one button since... well.

Re:When defending yourself...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Except they didn't, they had some unrelated financial dealings that people love to interpret as paying.

Care to give any actual information? Did Apple do their gardening? Did Xerox buy computers from Apple to design their GUI?

Re:When defending yourself...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Apple was fully prepared to pay FRAND licensing. Samsung was being the douchebag by trying to essentially extort a cross licensing agreement with Apple to use patents covered under FRAND./quote> Occam's razor. Only companies who want some of Apple's patents happen to sue Apple for "not wanting to license FRAND patents". What's more likely, that A) Apple only refused to license form them under FRAND terms and payed all other companies, or B) only they asked Apple for non-FRAND terms and are now pushing their little scam to the courts?

I thought EU was anti-troll

[danbuter]

I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Theaetetus]

I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

This has nothing to do with copyright. On the Apple hand, it's a design patent infringement suit. On the Samsung hand, it's an antitrust violation investigation.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[danbuter]

Ok, it's a "design patent" on the same level as all the copyright stuff. I can't edit my post, or I'd change it to read "frivolous/bullshit/patenting blatantly obvious stuff that shouldn't be patentable". In any case, I thought the EU was trending away from this crap.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Lunix Nutcase]

But it's then okay for another multinational corporation to sue others for patents required to implement a standard that should be available to all under RAND terms? Right, we must defend Samsung at all costs cause they happen to make Android devices! Ignoring the fact that if they were doing this exact same lawsuit against HTC, Motorola, or some other Android manufacturer that Slashdot would be up in arms over it.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[QuantumLeaper]

Apple suit is Black Bezels and rounded corners, Samsung suit is about Standards, so but suits are BS. Apple has a bigger pile of BS than Samsung....

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[forkfail]

Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[NIK282000]

Tablet nothing, they invented the rectangular computing device. No computing device from here on may be rectangular in shape for that shape is owned by Apple.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[teg]

Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

Or rather, ownership of the concept of everything looking and behaving like an iPad. The tablets prior to the ipad were very, very different - and now a tablet suddenly have to look exactly like an iPad?

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[forkfail]

Certain things about interfaces are absolutely intuitive, such as clicking on/touching a picture representing the task you want the device to perform.

Others are quasi-arbitrary, with the rest coming from what is now common. Green for go, red for stop. Certain things under a file menu. A QWERTY keyboard layout.

These things that we're talking about - they all fall into these two subsets of obvious solutions; solutions that have become the absolute standard, and without which, the technology in general is crippled and unusable to many people.

How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Telvin_3d]

Design patents are hard to enforce. Really, really hard. One of the reasons you don't hear about them much is that they are damn near impossible to violate, except intentionally, and even harder to get a court ruling on. It's one of those things where if the judge doesn't laugh it out of the room int he first five minutes there is probably a good case. This case has been going on for months. At this point I think the better assumption is that the judge has been able to see more evidence and arguments than can be summed up even a dozen Slashdot articles, and he doesn't think it's a waste of his time.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?

By building the much more generic (and significantly larger) 'generic vermin trap.' Unfortunately, the size makes it unusable in many of the cases where people want mousetraps, but it can catch possums, rats, mice, rabbits, and certain unwanted in-laws with a 74% successful hold rate.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Epimer]

The Google translation (so no accuracy guaranteed) suggests that the Court didn't find that Samsung infringed Apple's Community Design Right at all; the finding was under German laws of unfair competition. So it's Germany only, and the finding wasn't even strictly on the grounds of IP use.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[Epimer]

Confirmed here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/german-appeals-court-upholds-galaxy-tab.html

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...I think the better assumption is that the judge has been able to see more evidence and arguments than can be summed up even a dozen Slashdot articles, and he doesn't think it's a waste of his time.

Speaking as somebody who actually has both an iPad and a Galaxy Tab and has accidentally grabbed one while reaching for the other, I'm inclined to agree. If Apple had copied a product of Samsung's as closely as the Tab resembles the iPad, Think Geek would make a killing selling torches and pitchforks.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

Yes, you can tell how they're going after the entire concept of a tablet by the 25 specific aspects of Samsung's tablet they took issue with.

You really shouldn't develop your opinions by the headlines that fly past on a site that generates revenue from fan wars.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[walterbyrd]

What is a tablet supposed to look like? A tire iron? I can easilly tell the difference between a galaxy, and an ipad, with my eyes closed.

Furthermore, Apple did not "invent" rectangles, icons, or rounded corners.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[arose]

Very, very different?

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[thegarbz]

Lay off it Samsung.

Funny, when I got my last Samsung product my first thought was, "Hey that looks exactly like the box that the HTC Legend came in!" Funny also how the Motorola Xoom long predates the Galaxy Tab 10.1, looks identical from the front, but doesn't so much as warrant a raised eyebrow when those evil bastards at Samsung shamelessly copy poor Apple's products. How dare they!

Do yourself a favour and don't ever do a google image search young Apple troll, your head might explode.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[TheRealMuttley]

What is a tablet supposed to look like?

According to Samsung, it didn't look like an iPad before the introduction of the iPad: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[AmiMoJo]

Yes, you can tell how they're going after the entire concept of a tablet by the 25 specific aspects of Samsung's tablet they took issue with.

They are all ridiculous things though. Screen in the centre? How many computing devices, or devices with screens for that matter, have you seen where the screen isn't in the middle?

That was the OP's point, they are trying to claim ownership of fundamental design features of tablet computing devices.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Twenty five.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll

[toriver]

I am sure Samsung can afford the best IP lawyers in Europe, and if they cannot counter Apple's claims, I guess they do have some merit? Or do you think Samsung just picked some bum off the street to represent them?

aplle sux

[SuperDre]

Under EU patent rules, a company that hold patents for standardized products are required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price.

but the problem with Apple is, they think they are special and want to pay less as all the other companies, as Samsung is having them pay exactly the same as the rest..

Re:aplle sux

[Telvin_3d]

No, Apple thinks they are special and want to pay the publicly stated license terms. Samsung wants them to do what everyone else does and cut a side deal that waives license fees in exchange for patent and IP cross-licensing.

Re:aplle sux

[Truedat]

Samsung wants them to do what everyone else does and cut a side deal that waives license fees in exchange for patent and IP cross-licensing.

Otherwise known as a cartel. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:aplle sux

[arose]

Publically stated where?

Re:aplle sux

[Xest]

To be fair, that's not really the case. Samsung probably is charging Apple more, but it's because it has to to make up for the money Apple is making it lose by abusing it's patents.

I feel really sorry for Samsung because their obvious patents are restricted by FRAND, but Apple's really obvious patents (a rectangular tablet) aren't.

The real issue is that FRAND does have any clause in that allows you to waiver FRAND against abusive patent troll companies like Apple.

But nevertheless, Samsung probably is legally in the wrong, which really sucks, because morally, they're in the right - FRAND should cease to apply when the potential licensee in question is engaging in any kind of patent litigation against you.

Re:aplle sux

[toriver]

Why do people insist on inventing a connection between the two suits?

Design patents are not relevant to FRAND rules. Coca-Cola do not need to license their bottle design to Pepsi.

Re:aplle sux

[Xest]

Are you seriously suggesting it's mere coincidence that for the first time ever, Samsung decided to use it's 3G patents in litigation and against a firm who'd been launching a global design patent war against it?

You've got to be pretty fucking naive or a pretty retarded fanboy to not realise that Samsung's litigation was a response to Apple's litigation against Samsung. FRAND wireless and design patents may not be related in law, but Samsung's litigation using FRAND patents was clearly a response to Apple's design patent litigation.

Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[dryriver]

Galaxy Tab 10.1 is slimmer, lighter, has a higher res camera, a better screen and longer battery life than IPad 2. Oh, its also cheaper, and unlike iPad 2, can be bought "as is", without being tied to a mandatory 12/24 month dataplan, as is the case with iPad 2 where I live. I don't think Galaxy Tab is a shameless copy of iPad 2. I think that it is a significantly BETTER product that happens to look somewhat similar to iPad 2 (then again, all tablet computers look a lot like each other). Apple is suing because Samsung has produced a superior Tablet Computer. And some crappy court in Germany has decided to uphold this stupid claim. Galaxy Tab is the better tablet of the two, and Apple - being its typical agressive, domineering self - is suing to keep Korean Samsung's superior product out of people's hands, so they have have to go and buy an iPad 2 instead.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[Moheeheeko]

but but......ROUND CORNERS!

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[icongorilla]

Let's say you create a device. You send the blueprints to a manufacturer and soon start selling a "new segment" product. Lets say the company that was manufacturing your device decides to get in on the action since they see how well you're doing. They know what it will take... they have your blueprint after all.

Would you be upset if you were the designer of the device and manufacturer started putting out something a bit "too" similar to your product? Do you truly believe no further inspection is really necessary?

It's the same vat of hot water as a tech employee jumping between competing companies.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[dryriver]

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 - being an Android, rather than iOS device - looks and feels nothing like the iPad 2 when its switched on. Completely different UI/graphic design look. In fact it doesn't look remotely similar. Samsung also doesn't call it the sPad or something. They call it Galaxy Tab, which bears no resemblance to "iPad" whatsoever. Try it out yourself. Go to a store that has both the Samsung tablet and the Apple tablet, try both, and come back and tell me that they look similar. They don't! As for whoever modded my original parent post "Troll" - you Apple freaks are the worst fanboys of all. Samsung's tablet is technically superior to iPad 2. Pointing that out - that Apple doesn't have the best device on the market - is stating the facts, not trolling.But go on. Keep living in your twisted little fanboy world where Apple is the greatest computer company on the planet, and its products are the only ones that are great or groundbreaking. You Apple fanboys will grow older and wiser someday, and look back and wonder precisely what it was that was so "amazing" about Apple's products.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[Anonymous Coward]

and unlike iPad 2, can be bought "as is", without being tied to a mandatory 12/24 month dataplan

Where in the sam FUCK do you live that you can't buy an iPad without a data plan? Fucking seriously? I call BULLSHIT.

Sorry...I know we here at /. are anti-Apple, but for the love of god at least turn down the FUD to a manageable 10 on the scale...spewing pure bullshit just makes you look like as big of fucking douchebag as the fanbois make themselves out to be.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[Dog-Cow]

I bought the first-gen iPad 3G the day it first went for sale in the US. It did not require a data plan then, and it doesn't require one now. Which backwater do you live in that forces you to purchase a data plan with, or to use, an iPad?

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[Chrontius]

This sounds distressingly like the story of the CrunchPad, the iPad-preceeding tablet scheduled to sell for $150 that later became the JooJoo and sold for $600, after the manufacturing partner told TechCrunch that they would be moving on with the project on their own.

While it's true the manufacturing team did a great deal of work on making the CrunchPad something manufacturable, they got a lot of work done for them by TechCrunch.

Oh hey - the CrunchPad. TechCrunch made the look-and-feel of it publicly known before either of the products in question were launched, so I think that qualifies as prior art.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldier's dog tags were rounded rectangles long before the reality distortion field was formed.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2

[AmiMoJo]

And am I the only one who has noticed how the iPhone 4S looks a lot like the Galaxy S? If Samsung was copying Apple's designs then Apple must be just as guilty of copying Samsung's.

Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[forkfail]

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[Theaetetus]

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.

Not really... Apple's only claiming the specific design of the iPad, which the Galaxy Tab is confusingly similar to. Apple even noted that tablets could be designed in lots of non-infringing ways, and gave examples like the Archos. The Tab 10.1N was even designed to incorporate those suggestions, which is why the courts have said it doesn't infringe.

Samsung, on the other hand, apparently helped create a standard while holding back key patents from the licensing pool. That's a no-no.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[Sloppy]

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

No, the court has taken the opinion that they're not using a "pretty standard UI" but rather, an unusually Apple-like one. It's the trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago, all over again.

And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

You might disagree with it, but it's not unambiguously crazy.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[bennomatic]

And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

What I don't understand about this is that Apple (and likely most 3G device manufacturers) don't make their own 3G radios. Rather, they source components which use those radios. Isn't it up to the component manufacturer who creates their 3G implementation and sells it to the device manufacturer to cover these sorts of patent fees?

To use a ham-handed example, I'm sure there are lots of patented technologies in automotive tires. If Goodyear makes a tire which relies on a licensed patent from Pirelli, I'd assume that Goodyear provides all the licensing fees and passes the costs along to their customers. If one of those customers is, say Ford, who exclusively uses Goodyear tires on all of it's Festiva cars, does Ford have to pay that licensing fee as well?

There's clearly something that I don't understand, but it seems to me that a 3G radio should be like that tire, in that it's got an interface, and while the device may be designed around the features and functionality of the interface, the implementation of 3G technology is basically embedded within the component.

The only way I could see Apple or other device vendors being held responsible for the licensing would be if they are asking the component vendors to make custom versions of the radios as work-for-hire, i.e. the component manufacturers are just foundries doing the labor on Apple's designs which themselves infringe on the 3G patents. Is that what's going on here?

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[St.Creed]

The component vendors don't have to pay. They just manufacture stuff according to customer specs. If said customer specs something that is patented, that's their problem. Not the manufacturers problem, who isn't going to check every worldwide patent every time someone asks for something. Who knows what the customer does with them anyway. So it's usually the problem of the customer to license the patents and surprise, the smaller outfits often forget this step because they assume the manufacturer took care of that little detail.

This situation is why patentholders sometimes barge into the large expos with police, telling the small vendors to pay the license fees right there, or have everything impounded. This actually works quite well for the patentholders. Most people pay. But the background is that the manufacturers don't pay the licenses, usually.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

No, the court has taken the opinion that they're not using a "pretty standard UI" but rather, an unusually Apple-like one. It's the trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago, all over again.

Except the suit isn't even about the on-screen UI, it's about a design patent covering the hardware design -- plain rrect with 3D radius edges, more or less. The aspects of the UI which many fans have reasonably pointed out are similar (partly because of well-established iconography over the past decade, partly not) aren't even at issue.

The reason these aren't at issue is, IMO, likely because of the "trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago", which turned out pretty poorly for Apple, the ultimate ruling (yeah, US, so not applicable in Germany) being that look-and-feel in general, and most specific elements Apple listed that weren't covered by the existing contract, were not copyrightable; the NewWave trash-can icon and folder icons being the ONLY claims they won. The most likely outcome (Samsung forced to change some icons which are unreasonably similar) doesn't really help Apple at this point, since Samsung devices would still be sold, and while it doesn't help them either (Samsung would be forced to cover Apple's legal costs), there's the risk the case goes against them, too -- there's really no business sense in pursuing that, even if they have a case.

OTOH, the design of mechanical components requires significant time to alter, so the design patent case makes sense -- it might block the sale of affected Samsung products for 6 months or so (until a new version, like the 10N, can be brought to market), giving Apple a significant advantage.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here.

[bennomatic]

Thanks for the follow-up. I certainly understand how that would be the right way to go if a component vendor is effectively acting as a dumb foundry, just making things to spec. But it seems to me that a *lot* of end-manufacturers (e.g., Apple et al) use the same or nearly identical components. For example, I had thought that Qualcomm was the component vendor of note for a huge portion of 3G and Wifi radios. Since that's their business--making 3G radios, even if they're maybe customizing them in terms of size and shape for a particular end-manufacturer, that they are indeed profiting off of those patents.

I guess it's all about who is actually putting the product into the customer's hands.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Lashat]

The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg

Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg

Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

That's more about how narrow design patents are. Which is kinda the point - Samsung really had to work hard (or, rather, not work at all) to infringe the iPad design patent.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Kartu]

Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge. She agreed with the point that "plain design can be patented" when refering to a device with front end dominated by screen. I guess she has never walked into a TV store. Thing black bezels, slightly rounded rectangles all over the place. Oh, and without "innovative apple" this time, quite naturally.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the 10.1N will be banned from sale will be decided on the 9th.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge.

Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[ifiwereasculptor]

Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

Isn't that weird, though? In my time, you branded your stuff if you wanted it to be unique and to avoid confusion, you didn't leave them plain and then sued everyone else into branding theirs.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Anonymous Coward]

The 10.1N has front-facing speakers, so I'd actually prefer it.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[oxdas]

This is what the Dutch court, right next to Germany, ruled last year. It held that Samsung did not violate Apple's design claims (the same ones Germany says they did). The court pointed out that by choosing a functionalist design, Apple was deserving of less protection.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Scragglykat]

I think I prefer the look of the 10.1N myself. It stands out... though it does look kind of like a Toshiba or Acer Android tablet... hope they don't have a court case in the works.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[shutdown -p now]

Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 does have a Samsung logo on the front, right beneath the screen.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 does have a Samsung logo on the front, right beneath the screen.

Looks like that's a later, post-injunction model (the date on the picture is Sept 11, 2011). Here is the official release announcement from Feb 13, 2011, with no logo.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Kartu]

Let me cite things that Samsung might have done differently not to infringe upon Apple's "community design" according to Apple's lawyer (it might sound like a joke, but it IS NOT A JOKE): For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. [A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance. http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/230535/apples-helpful-guidelines-competitors-avoid-patent-infringement

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Kartu]

Nope. I own one (!), pre-injuction one (no N and no silly looking "ears") and it DOES have pale logo on the front page (actually looks exactly like that one on wiki) The post injuction one (10.1N) looks like this: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81jNE0RlIuL._AA1500_.jpg

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Let me cite things that Samsung might have done differently not to infringe upon Apple's "community design" according to Apple's lawyer (it might sound like a joke, but it IS NOT A JOKE): For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. [A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance. http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/230535/apples-helpful-guidelines-competitors-avoid-patent-infringement

Yes, exactly. Doing any one of those would have had them avoid infringement. Say, an identical Tab 10.1, but the speaker opening is two slots with square ends, or a bunch of pinholes. Or an identical Tab 10.1, with the Samsung logo on the front. Or a Tab 10.1 with two rounded corners and two squared corners. Or, the 10.1N, which is identical to the 10.1 except that the metal bezel wraps around two of the front sides.

Honestly, design patents are narrow. It's easier to not infringe one than it is to infringe.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition -- not really about design patents at all.

I'll hit some highlights:

Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.

Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.

Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definition of obvious. Oh, and the rounded corners here, as in the phone/tablet itself, are an engineering integrity issue, and have nothing to do with design.

Front surfaces that contain "substantial adornment" -- another transparent attempt to try to force competing products to look stupid. The trend has been for decades to minimize "adornment".

Bezels that are not thin -- again, an attempt to force obviously bad design. Uniform -- again. Inwardly sloping profile -- anyone who spent ten minutes thinking about it would agree this was obvious for actual usability on a touchscreen device.

The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition

[Citation needed]

And it's going to be an uphill battle since every manufacturer, including Samsung in the 10.1N, incorporates at least one of those options. Clearly, unlike you, manufacturers and designers don't find them ridiculous, restrictive, or competition-destroying.

But let's see some specific examples of each design option that you claim are ridiculous, and can't be done because they would destroy the competitor:

Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.

Motorola Xoom 2.

Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.

Archos 101.

Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definition of obvious.

HP Touchpad.

Oh, and the rounded corners here, as in the phone/tablet itself, are an engineering integrity issue, and have nothing to do with design.

Lenovo Stylus Thinkpad.

Front surfaces that contain "substantial adornment" -- another transparent attempt to try to force competing products to look stupid. The trend has been for decades to minimize "adornment".

Motorola Xoom.

Bezels that are not thin -- again, an attempt to force obviously bad design.

Archos 7.

Uniform -- again.

Skytex Skytab.

Inwardly sloping profile -- anyone who spent ten minutes thinking about it would agree this was obvious for actual usability on a touchscreen device.

Archos 7, again.

The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent.

I'm sure every other manufacturer would love to hear that you think their stuff is poorly designed, ridiculous looking, and unable to compete.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

alternative smartphone designs

and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.

If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.

Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be dishonest or are really just that knee-jerk blind.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

alternative smartphone designs

and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.

Hey, buddy, did you miss the fact that this article, the headline, and the thread title are all about tablets?

But seriously, if you're that bent out of shape because I provided examples of tablets that are distinct from the iPad rather than smart phones that are distinct from the iPhone, I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.

If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.

Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be dishonest or are really just that knee-jerk blind.

You were saying that all of those alternatives were ridiculous and poorly designed. I'm sure Nokia, Samsung, HTC, HP, RIM, and others would love to hear that you think their products are "less usable, less functional, or less portable", since they all have products that vary in design from the iPhone.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about

alternative smartphone designs

and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet?

Also, from the same post you quoted:

For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile. [A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance.

... so before you jump off into "bu-bu-bu-but we were only talking about phones, and you're talking about tablets and tablets aren't phonesandsoyou'rewrong!!!11One!" we were also talking about tablets.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.

The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones. If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints. Is response time factored into your compensation package?

I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.

I'd be interested to see a list of recent, successful phones that don't infringe on what Apple considers their design space.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.

The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones.

As quoted by the great grandparent post, the points - per Apple - included both smartphones and tablets.

If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints.

From your post: "The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent."

If you can't keep track of whether you're discussing tablets or not, I really can't help you.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand or even follow through on your own offers.

Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up. As I recall, you used similar misdirection there, too.

This means this really is just dishonesty -- you're trying to distract people from very real problems in blind defense of a company that I dearly hope is paying you for compromising your morals.

I guess I'm just wasting my time. .

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand

Your earlier post: "every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about."

Pot, meet kettle.

Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up.

Actually, I provided several page references. You even copied and pasted one such page, claiming it didn't include measurements. I then pointed out the specific measurements in the paragraph that you claimed didn't exist. You then got huffy and said it wasn't worth your time to respond. Kinda like now.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.

You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true. That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.

Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.

Yes, I have. Go back to that thread. Specific page numbers are quoted repeatedly.

You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true.

Thanks for finally admitting it. Only took you how many days and posts?

That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.

Except, as you admit, there was no falsehood. You can't even keep two sentences consistent, you're so busy calling me names.

Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements.

You've already had to backpedal on the existence of measurements in that thread. You've also had to backpedal on whether or not you mentioned tablets in this thread. Care to backpedal again on whether two different page numbers are mentioned in that post?

Y'know, you've called me a liar over, and over, and over. How about I go back to my post in that thread and see if I see more than one page number referenced? There's an easily and objectively provable liar here, and it's not me.

Additionally, I notice you've also quietly ducked the discussion in this thread about the similarities between the tablets and phones and all the specific tablets I mentioned to refute your "poor design" claims, and are refusing to discuss the topic in this thread. Do you have anything to add to this topic, or are you just threadjacking?

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

Okay. One. More. Time.

You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.

You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo. If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.

Also, I very clearly pointed out both page numbers in my last post. You either don't read when people reply to you, or (more likely) don't like being caught in your blatant falsehoods and so attempt to cover up for them with smoke and mirrors. Pity that doesn't actually work in practice with people who know what they're talking about.

Regarding threadjacking, that's exactly what you did to my original post by ignoring what I was talking about, so my sympathies are limited. I will likely continue to reference this false claim of yours in the future when I notice you spreading misinformation elsewhere.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Theaetetus]

Okay. One. More. Time.

You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.

You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo.

As I said, that you can't read German isn't my fault.

If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.

See the original post. See the page number. See you frothing in impotent rage and refusing to admit that you see a number there. There are four lights, Captain.

Also, I very clearly pointed out both page numbers in my last post.

You also very clearly claimed that there was only one. Get your story straight.

You either don't read when people reply to you, or (more likely) don't like being caught in your blatant falsehoods and so attempt to cover up for them with smoke and mirrors. Pity that doesn't actually work in practice with people who know what they're talking about.

Did you mean yourself? The guy who claims he read the brief and there were no measurements, then admits there were measurements after being repeatedly prompted, and then finally admits he never read the brief and can't read German? Because you've already admitted you have no idea what you're talking about, so maybe you meant me.

Regarding threadjacking, that's exactly what you did to my original post by ignoring what I was talking about, so my sympathies are limited. I will likely continue to reference this false claim of yours in the future when I notice you spreading misinformation elsewhere.

Okay, troll-boy. Enjoy the repeated downmods for threadjacking, trolling other users, and posting flamebait. For my part, I'm going to ignore your posts, since you've admitted you're just trying to harass me.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[PaladinAlpha]

Me pointing out both pages:

Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).

Your post in which you gave page numbers is here. You only give 23 and 29, neither of which contain Apple's supposed notice that they had modified the photo, etc.

I don't really have anything more to add, since you've admitted you were lying.

You already know that and are just lying to protect Apple's image from the truth, for some reason; this is just for anyone following along.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a loony. Seriously, certifiably nuts. I lol'd at this thread.

Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.

But borrow ideas from Apples! No no no no!

Hypocrites.

Re:Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung aren't artists.

Re:Groan

[gnasher719]

...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.

That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. "Little minds copy, great artists steal. "

"Great artists steal" means that great artists pick up ideas that float around everywhere, and run with them, and create something exciting and new. Little minds look at the iPad and try to make a cheap copy. Great artists look at Xerox Parc, see a company with some ideas that isn't doing anything with those ideas, and takes it, runs with it, and creates something new that wasn't there before. Hence Lisa, Macintosh, iPhone, iPad.

Samsung isn't stealing ideas. Stealing ideas means you have to invest lots of talent to go from idea to a product. They copy design; that's just so much easier.

The awful thing is that these guys are actually capable of creating great designs themselves; I've got a Samsung TV, and a Samsung colour laser printer, and they both look beautiful. But some idiot in upper management probably told them not to design a tablet themselves but to copy Apple. Result: Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits, _plus_ one of their best customers very very keen to leave them if at all possible.

Re:Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is a thief.

Stupid

[should_be_linear]

One company selling overpriced gadget is suing another company selling overpriced gadget. In two years all their infringments will be resolved by everyone buying Chinese $100 full-featured tablets.

Re:Stupid

[toriver]

Overpriced how? If it sells a lot it is by definition not overpriced since people are willing to pay the price. Unless you somehow feel things should be sold at the cost of materials, or companies should be forbidden from profits.

But they do...

[MrCrassic]

A few days ago, I was in Best Buy looking for a new external hard drive. While I was trying to get over the insane price markups, a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest models, and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete replicas of their products, but the "nods" they include in their designs are pretty obvious. Not a bad thing when you consider the technological advancements they provide with their clone-killers, but not surprising when Apple throws down the legal gauntlet as a response.

Re:But they do...

[HBI]

If you go to Korea, you'll see tons of replicant merchandise for sale locally. The problem for Apple is that no matter how successful they are in pushing design patents in Europe and the US, the vast majority of the world's population will be inundated with clone merchandise which Apple will never see a red cent of. Do you think the Korean/Chinese/Indian/smaller player governments will do anything concrete about this? Of course not. Also, patents run out and get invalidated.

Fighting with Samsung like this is a delaying tactic. It's a losing game for them. Anyone not shorting Apple after Jobs' passing is missing the boat.

Re:But they do...

[Solandri]

Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete replicas of their products, but the "nods" they include in their designs are pretty obvious.

Take a look at this Samsung product. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.

There are certain basic concepts which recur over and over in product designs. Black looks good, certain things look better flat rather than curved, make the flat thing shiny for bonus points, a border around the main area of focus (screen/photo) helps isolate it from the background, a chrome/metal trim along the edge makes a good highlight. The only thing that's changed is that suddenly Apple is claiming that they own these basic age-old design concepts and nobody else is allowed to use them in certain types of new products.

Re:But they do...

[Osgeld]

its a thin black laptop everyone stop and bow to apple, look at a Gateway NV, or a Dell Inspiron R or even Z series, how about a Toshiba Portégé, they OBVIOUSLY ripped off apple

Re:But they do...

[Solandri]

I forgot to add:

a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest models, and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

The MBP is not the origin of that svelte, flat look. This was the laptop I owned in 2000.

Re:But they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

So what?

Here's what I don't get: Apple fans will repeatedly say how superior OS X and iOS to, well, every competing equivalent. If it's so superior, is there really ANY chance that a customer looking for Apple stuff will mistakenly buy a Samsung product? Wouldn't the OS stand on its own merits?

That Samsung copies the styling cues of Apple is obvious even to me, but you know what they say... imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all. So why is Apple (and its fans) in such a tizzy about the design issue? Is this some unacknowledged fear that Apple products can't stand competition on their own strengths?

I guess what I'm wondering is: are Apple products ACTUALLY better on pure functionality, in which case Apple should have nothing to fear from imitators, or is this admission that marketing, looks, and perception have a bigger impact on consumers than most Apple fans would have you believe?

But I guess the opposite applies too: Can Samsung/Winodws/Android not stand on its own merits too? :)

Re:But they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

A foolish statement by a fool!
The products you mentioned don't even look like the Macbook, but the Samsung laptop from the OP DOES!

Re:But they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Show a picture of the side or rear of the device and it ceases to look anything like an iPad. Samsung has a long history of ripping off designs from other companies. RIM previously sued Samsung over a BlackBerry knockoff that Samsung endearingly called the BlackJack. Whether or not you agree such copying is wrong, legally or morally, there's no denying that Samsung borrows quite heavily from the designs of other companies and has done so for quite some time.

Re:But they do...

[scot4875]

The shitty keyboard on that thing definitely looks MacBook-like. Additionally, the power button is in a similar position. Other than that, I wouldn't say that looks even remotely like my MacBook.

--Jeremy

Re:But they do...

[Solandri]

Show a picture of the side or rear of the device and it ceases to look anything like an iPad.

That's the rear of a different Samsung digital picture frame. I wasn't able to find pictures of the rear of the 2006 model, but here's the rear of the 2008 version (in white). As you can see, aside from the stand poking out the back, the relative thickness, and radius of the curvature, it looks very much like the original iPad.

Anyhow, the point wasn't that Samsung had released an iPad before the iPad. The point was that the design elements Apple is claiming ownership of in tablet-space were widely used long before the iPad existed.

Re:But they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, seems a bit intellectually dishonest since you're ignoring what Samsung was doing with tablets. Sure, the iPad and the digital picture frame look alike but that's still not a tablet and Samsung had no plans of offering a tablet with that form factor.

Here's a handheld tablet (minitablet) of Samsung's from 2006: http://news.cnet.com/Samsung-unfolds-Origami-tablet-in-stores/2100-1044_3-6085406.html
Small pictures but you can easily see what form factor Samsung had in mind for a handheld tablet. It's not even close to an iPad or any other modern tablet.

Here's another tablet of Samsung's from 2006: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/11/samsungs-720td-17-inch-tablet-display/
Samsung didn't even consider a tablet as something handheld, instead using the moniker minitablet as seen above. More similar to an iPad than the minitablet but clear differences with size, weight, bezel controls, and a stand.

You'd think it would be an obvious progression from the second link to the Galaxy Tab but, nope, Samsung had to wait for Apple to release the iPad before realizing that, releasing the Galaxy tab months later after the iPad had become successful.

Re:But they do...

[phorm]

Hmm. Looks like my laptop - which is neither a Samsung nor a Mac - except thinner.

Re:But they do...

[gnasher719]

Take a look at this Samsung product. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.

Rotate the picture by 90 degrees, and all similarity disappears. Or let's put it this way: If the Samsung tablet of 2011 had looked exactly like the Samsung photo frame from 2006, not just from the front, but from the back and the sides as well, then (1) Apple wouldn't have the slightest chance in a lawsuit, but that wouldn't matter because (2) no shop would even put the device on their shelves, for fear that customers might die laughing and then sue the store.

Re:But they do...

[arose]

So the same design isn't the same design if you put a stand behind it? Sounds like "on the internet" patents all over again. We did the same design as Samsung, but on a tablet! They totally shouldn't be able to reuse design elements of their non-tablets because we used them in our tablet first...

bezel is only difference

[Chirs]

A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

Re:bezel is only difference

[Anonymous Coward]

But the iPad was the first to have a "skinny" bezel ON A TABLET!

And that's what's most important in getting your patent accepted. Can't wait to see the next wave of the patent rush when people take everything that was ON THE INTERNET! before and repatent it ON A TABLET! and then sue people for using a web app on a tablet.

Re:bezel is only difference

[Theaetetus]

A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

It wasn't the basis. The design patent covers the entire design, not just "a skinny bezel". Lots of other tablets - the Xoom, the Prime - have skinny bezels, but don't infringe the design patent.

Re:bezel is only difference

[arose]

Didn't stop them from countersuing Motorola with the Xoom...

Equal laws

[Hentes]

Corporations are not people, there is no such thing as self-defence in the corporate world. We should be happy that the courts got at least one of the two trolls, it shows far more sense than they usually have.

I know exactly why:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

Only on Slashdot... LOL.

Go to a "dance" and ask people why. Everybody who is not like you, will know it. I'm serious.

The exact answer is: First it's defensive. The more people want you, the bigger your defenses have to be. And then she notices, that she can abuse it too.
The trick is, to just plow right through the bitchiness, and see it as a part of the defenses, not part of her true personality.
If you uncover that it's just defenses, she usually changes into someone completely different. That's when you know you made it.

The thing is: Underneath, you usually find a pretty shallow and boring personality. Because she never had to fight for things. Everything was just given to her. Everyone served her.

So if you're smart, you won't want her in the first place. Let the idiots hurt themselves on her. Get the sweet girl on the side, which is not such a hassle, and live a balanced relationship and a much happier life. :)

Of course the analogy might not work with phone manufacturers. ^^

Prior art

[Intropy]

If Clark and Kubrick were still alive they'd sue both Apple and Samsung since both are clearly knockoffs of their original featureless black obelisk.

Re:Prior art

[amoeba1911]

Actually, no, there was a tablet computer in the movie "2001" that looked just like an iPad. That's prior art.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I only came in here to see butthurt basement dweller rage. Carry on.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people get so worked up about lawsuits between big companies. It's not like Samsung is the little underdog here. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation, they can take care of themselves. This is just business. Samsung is somewhat more "inspired" by other products than most companies, and that nets them the odd lawsuit. So what, they've built that into their cost of doing business. And yet nerds all over the place take it like a personal affront. Oh no, big bad apple is picking on little ol innocent Samsung that can't defend itself.

Where Samsung have factories in Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is stupid! why don't we ban all cars, as they're all on wheels - and some dush thousands years ago invented it. This is not abut Apple this is about Samsung, what you have to ask yourself is where Samsung have factories in Europe? And the answer would be - who's economy "nazis" want to hurt - simple isn't it?!

Should be easy enough for Samsung

[Rogerborg]

Surely they can just claim to have ripped the design off directly from Star Trek: TNG, like Apple did?

Against principles of German law

[Anonymous Coward]

This result is against the principles of the German consumer protection laws. The laws are supposed to protect the weakest party in the economical issues. It is also supposed to promote fair competition. The law-makers and government advisors preach this principle down and up in the university and in public debates on epsos.de.

The ban of a competitive product is not very protective of consumers. I want my Samsung Tablet with German localization. This judge is against me and thousands of other people who bought online from surrounding countries. Apple can not stop any product from being bought in Germany, because delivery costs across countries are very fair in Europe.

Samsung is using Android. Apple is using a prisoned OS. The judge is a total lunatic for believing that those two products are similar.

Sick

[gx5000]

I hate this new world. Back in the Day, if someone copied you and bested your product it was up to you to innovate. Now all these guys do is sit on their backsides with IP and C rights and sue anyone who comes close. It's time we got rid of these laws that only protect greed and obsolescence...

Incorrect article!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/apple-loses-german-court-bid-to-ban-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1n-nexus-phone.html

Computerworld is running the opposite story

[Anonymous Coward]

Computerworld is saying just the opposite thing: that Samsung won to Apple:
Samsung scores win in German patent battle with Apple over its tablets
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223923/Samsung_scores_win_in_German_patent_battle_with_Apple_over_its_tablets
-Ignacio Agulló