Apple Loses German Court Bid To Ban Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, Nexus Phone

Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple patents technology that they didn't invent and tries to stop samsung nexus and fails

Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:15 · Score: 5, Informative

It is widely known that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
Re:Apple by geogob · 2012-02-02 23:29 · Score: 0, Troll

You mean, it is widely assumed that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
To my knowledge, the claims have never been proven in a court of law or otherwise. Although the similarities between the devices are obvious, it is still just an assumption. For all we know, both Apple and LG could have gotten their inspiration from the same source.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:06 · Score: 0

Riiight and the sun isn't bright because it was never proven in a court of law.
Re:Apple by Joce640k · 2012-02-03 00:16 · Score: 2

both Apple and LG could have gotten their inspiration from the same source.
...so could Samsung.

--
No sig today...
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:20 · Score: 0, Troll

With that comment you just defeated your own argument, "You mean, it is widely assumed that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG." As you state, while it hasn't been proven in a court of law, something obvious to anyone seeing it is fairly certain nonetheless.
Apple and Samsung both are making a mess in the marketplace by trying to sue one another out of competition. That's unfair and not right. The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
Rather than arguing how poor and defenseless Apple is going to protect themselves, maybe you could look at this objectively a moment and see that both businesses are in the wrong and the people who are suffering is everyone BUT Samsung and Apple, both of which have fairly healthy bottom lines. They're both bad actors and neither one of them has enough proof to do anything but keep making non-news stories like these. Maybe they should try innovating and making new products...
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

In this case it seems very implausible that Apple copied the design, given that the LG Prada was announced the 12 of December 2006 and the iPhone was announced and demonstrated to the public on January the 9th 2007. So for them to have copied the design, Apple would have had to redesign the phone in less than a month.
It is far more likely that they are similar looking because there are only so many ways to design a touch screen phone in a "minimalistic" way, which clearly both LG/Prada and Apple were going for.
The Similarities between the LG Prada and the iPhone should, however, be used as evidence against Apple when they claim others have copied their design. If it is possible for two phones to be as similar as those two phones by coincidence, then Apple should have no case against the Samsung Galaxy.
Re:Apple by Calos · 2012-02-03 00:43 · Score: 1

The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.
Have any evidence to back that up? Have Samsung and Apple been increasing their prices?
Apple could maybe get away with it. Samsung, probably not, as people could just substitute into similar Android phones of other brands. But I personally haven't seen a price shift.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:Apple by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-03 00:52 · Score: 1

...which could be any of the various touchscreen-only PalmOS devices of the early/mid 2000s.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Apple by erroneus · 2012-02-03 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have to go with this position (above) simply because to be minimal, there are few ways to accomplish that for any given purpose. But you know, the same goes for Samsung's Tabs... minimal, and not too many ways to be minimal without looking like other minimal devices of the same type.
But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device. This is just ridiculous.
I'm going to need to patent the shape of a ball and then sue every maker of balls for design infringement.
Re:Apple by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-03 01:09 · Score: 2

I'm going to need to patent the shape of a ball
I've already got the square ball, the pinball, the beach ball, the bowling ball and the brand name "Baal".
Oh, and I'm currently in court trying to enforce my patent on the pair of balls that you hang on the back bumper of a pickup truck. When I was 3 I had a pair of those hanging on the back of my Big Wheel. That's how badass I was.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Apple by coinreturn · 2012-02-03 01:22 · Score: 1

It is widely known that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
No, if anything, it is is widely claimed. And for that matter it isn't widely, but narrowly - specifically by LG.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:30 · Score: 5, Informative

According to LG, the design was first presented in September 2006 actually.
Re:Apple by Joce640k · 2012-02-03 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, but they didn't. And Apple sued anyway.
Presumably just to be assholes - why compete on features/price when you've got money to burn on lawyers?

--
No sig today...
Re:Apple by geogob · 2012-02-03 01:39 · Score: 1

Or newton OS from the 90s...
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:43 · Score: 0

The iPhone and the LG Prada phones bore only a superficial resemblance, in the same way that many modern flatscreen TVs, by virtue of form following function, have common appearance. There is certainly a resemblance though and that cannot be denied.
The similarities between the Galaxy and the iPhone are somewhat more obvious. The rim visible from the front, the button down the bottom, the appearance of the user interface, the side and back views, and gestures - with all of these things combined it's asinine to argue that Samsung had any intentions other than churning out an iPhone knock-off. Compare the iPhone 3GS to the Samsung Galaxy S. All companies take inspiration from other sources - this is normal. What's less honest is blatantly copying in the hopes of confusing consumers by latching on to the success of a rival. iPhone needs competition, not "me too" clones.
Re:Apple by poetmatt · 2012-02-03 01:46 · Score: 1

Well it sure as hell seems to be widely *assumed* that samsung "stole" the design from apple. Yet, guess what? Neither of these are the answer - neither apple stealing nor samsung, and are just idiotic mindspew.
The reality is that independent invention, where a bunch of people come up with the same glaringly obvious shit at the same time (let's add internet access to...a device! for example), is a reality, a giant benefit to society, and law worldwide simply do not handle this properly.
It's not a question of "who made it/who copied who" it's a question of "if everyone came up with it, why should *anyone* be able to claim ownership?" That's the real problem.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:46 · Score: 0

My guess is that Samsung is too big a company for that increase to be instantaneous. And Apple probably have generous margins on their phones, so they don't really need to increase the price. But his point is valid nonetheless, the money has to come from somewhere, either if it's from their margins, increased prices or employee salary.
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:47 · Score: 0

The LG Prada was unveiled in September of 2006. That would have been enough time for Apple to physically redesign the iPhone for a January showing and they had another 6 months to work on it before anybody outside of Apple could get their hands on one.

LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:18 · Score: 0

Erm, the first chance Apple had to observe the LG Prada was in September 2006, not December.
Re:Apple by Theaetetus · 2012-02-03 03:11 · Score: 1

But you know, with all that said, the fact that the word SAMSUNG is in bold, right there on the front leave little question as to whether or not it can be mistaken for an Apple device. This is just ridiculous.
While I agree with most of the rest of what you said, the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 - the one that started the lawsuit - only had the Samsung logo on the back.
Re:Apple by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 03:12 · Score: 1

OMG!
Both Apple and LG both got inspired by another product?!?!?!?!?
Shut them both down now along with Samsung. Find the product that inspired them and make it the only company in the world that can make anything that looks anything like it for the next 200 years.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Apple by terebarna2000 · 2012-02-03 03:13 · Score: 1

Whoooooooooo sorprendente
Re:Apple by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 03:17 · Score: 2

Show me someone who thought they were getting an iPhone and ended up with a Samsung because they were "confused".
I'll wait.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:30 · Score: 1

Your faulty conclusion assumes Apple didn't know about the LG Prada until after it was announced to the public.
Re:Apple by geogob · 2012-02-03 03:36 · Score: 1

No. Neither should be shut down or affected in any way.
Design - this is what we are talking about here, technical design - is a lot like art. To a very large extent, it shouldn't be allow to patent or claim copyright on design lines, just like you can't (or shouldn't be able to) for art. Technical design, just like art, follows trends and evolve together, yet independently.
All these patent infringement claims are getting ridiculous, regardless from who they come. It feels the same way as if the first car company that made a rounded car in 90s tried to block other car makers sales because they also introduced cars with rounded forms. Or as if one said all painters from the impressionist period are ripoff and worthless because they copied "the first" impressionist.
Re:Apple by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 03:41 · Score: 1

Whoosh?

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Apple by horza · 2012-02-03 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

They got the court injunction to prevent Samsung sales in the crucial run up to Christmas. Mission accomplished. They don't care that it's now thrown out of court.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Apple by geogob · 2012-02-03 04:46 · Score: 1

Don't worry, I got your point. It wasn't that subtle ;)
Re:Apple by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 04:54 · Score: 1

Ok then.
For a moment I was worried about you.
Don't scare me like that again. :)

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Apple by spire3661 · 2012-02-03 06:05 · Score: 1

You are being purposefully obtuse if you dont see Samsung doing wrong here. Samsung deliberately tried to confuse the marketplace with strikingly similar items. There is simply no other logical conclusion. I would call out any other company for doing the same. Samsung tried putting Pepsi in a Coke shaped bottle(probably the most recognizable design patent in the world).

--
Good-bye
Re:Apple by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 07:10 · Score: 1

So then you are saying that Samsung made so that there are people out there who are confused as to what they bought.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Apple by scot4875 · 2012-02-03 08:23 · Score: 1

And here we have a court of law saying that Apple can't block the sale of Samsung's products because Samsung didn't steal their ideas. Maybe Samsung and Apple and LG all got their inspiration from the same source. Guess you'll STFU now?
If you're going to appeal to authority (or lack of authority, in this case), you don't get to ignore when authority doesn't agree with you.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Apple by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-03 08:32 · Score: 1

thank you for talking sense. i don't know the patent system very well, so I don't know the line between "stolen but not illegal" and "stolen and illegal". But it's stolen nonetheless.
Re:Apple by erroneus · 2012-02-03 14:02 · Score: 2

The claim Apple is making is that Samsung's devices are too similar to Apple's and might easily be mistake for Apple's when consumers are making purchasing decisions. And when Apple presented evidence, they did so in the form of deliberately doctored images where, among other things, they removed the brand markings from the Samsung device. Had they not done so, they would have had a harder time making their claim don't you think?
Re:Apple by jrumney · 2012-02-03 14:43 · Score: 1

IIRC, Samsung also announced a phone around the same time, which was very similar to current Galaxy devices, down to the single square button at the bottom, though the top and bottom were more rounded than current models, thus not invalidating the "square with rounded corners" design patent.
Re:Apple by geogob · 2012-02-03 22:01 · Score: 1

I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that the whole idea of copying a design is worthless and only based on assumptions. Only a court of justice can decide in cases like that because society decided they know better. The cases where obvious copies were made are only a handful.
In the end, all these design/patent copying/infringement case are a joke. None should ever be heard by a judge. You, like many others, seem to think from my post I believe otherwise or worse, that I somehow endorse case where Apple claims patent infringement and requests product bans. I don't care any more for these cases than for any other of this nature. Actually, I have no idea what you think to justify a tone like that. But, its the interweb, so I'll just STFU I guess and stop posting things, you know, facts.
Don't read to much between the lines - you'll find there only what you want to find.
Re:Apple by Hentes · 2012-02-04 02:59 · Score: 1

These patents appear to be connected to the multitouch screen of iPhones which the Prada did not have (but MS Surface did).
Re:Apple by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-02-07 20:49 · Score: 1

It is widely known that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
Yes, absolutely, Apple has a time machine. The official introduction of the Prada Phone was a week after that of the iPhone. This claim is even dumber than the "the iPad design is stolen from the tablet in 2001".

--
Fandroids hate facts.
Re:Apple by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-02-07 20:58 · Score: 1

The Similarities between the LG Prada and the iPhone should, however, be used as evidence against Apple when they claim others have copied their design. If it is possible for two phones to be as similar as those two phones by coincidence, then Apple should have no case against the Samsung Galaxy.
Unless you ignore the obvious differences between the Prada Phone and both the iPhone and the Samsung phones.

--
Fandroids hate facts.
Re:Apple by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-02-07 21:49 · Score: 1

So if they take an actual iPad and put an SAMSUNG sticker on it, it becomes their design.

--
Fandroids hate facts.

who loses? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:43 · Score: 1

It's not Apple. It's not Samsung.
Their customers however...

I can't tell the difference between the iPad+Tab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:43 · Score: 0

I am also a retard and visually impaired

Troll away by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:45 · Score: 1

Most consumers don't really give a damn about these petty fights: we just buy things that better fit our pockets not perfect/secure solutions. If I really need to buy something banned I will (and sometimes at a better price too :P).

Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Iphones by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Motorola bans Apple from seling Ipads and Iphones and Germany :D

Sorry, german only: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Motorola-erwirkt-Vertriebsverbot-fuer-iPhones-und-iPad-1427712.html

Good to hear by msobkow · 2012-02-02 22:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's good to hear the courts are not letting Apple leverage a patent that's expected to be invalidated in order to damage a competitor's business. Samsung did, after all, modify the "N" design to get around Apple's patents that applied to the 10.1, so they did their due diligence.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

who wins? by Noughmad · 2012-02-02 22:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not Apple. It's not Samsung.
The lawyers however...

--
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.

Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:21 · Score: 1

Samsung has gained a lot, the constrant press releases about the trials, made their stuff pretty popular...
Re:who wins? by toutankh · 2012-02-02 23:36 · Score: 2

I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
Re:who wins? by toutankh · 2012-02-02 23:39 · Score: 2

I honestly and in all subjectivity doubt it. Here in Australia where the Galaxy tablet was banned I see iPads every day out in the street, in the bus, etc. I saw only one Galaxy tab in 8 months however.
Re:who wins? by rtfa-troll · 2012-02-03 00:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

In some sense both Apple and Samsung win. Small startup companies coming into this area now have to explain how they would take on either of these companies in an IP lawsuit and / or get licenses which will be so expensive their products become uncompetitive. The entire group of major technology patent holders is a cartel working together to steal from consumers by increasing prices and reducing the ability of the market to change faster than they are able to keep up with. With patent lawsuits like this running around they can afford to reduce R&D and just make money together with more limited competition.
Sure, Apple and Microsoft are deeply evil, but Samsung is a at least bit evil too, and Google is building up a huge load of patents whilst failing to give a clear statement and guarantee to protect free software companies, so even they are having evil effects. This is a bit like American Politics. Just because one side is bad, doesn't mean the other side isn't bad too. You don't become fair and balanced by asking a wolf and a hyena whether the sheep wants to be eaten.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:who wins? by gnasher719 · 2012-02-03 00:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
That's not a correct interpretation of the situation, actually.

Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar. And it is obvious that Apple doesn't like it. Whether Apple has a case legally or not doesn't matter that much; the message sent is "if you try to sell devices that we think are copying our devices then you'll end up in court, and we make it as inconvenient as possible for you". There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't because the _reason_ for suing is not the patents, but the similarity of the product design.

The proper solution would be for Samsung to not copy the iPad design, but to tell their designers (and from my experience, they had some pretty decent designers create their TVs and laser printers) to create a design that is actually _better_ than the iPad. Try to be a bit competitive for a change instead of copying.
Re:who wins? by Calos · 2012-02-03 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hard to benefit from the publicity when the product receiving publicity is, well, banned.
How do the bans work, anyway? Just sale in the country, or is it illegal to buy overseas and ship one in?

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't ...
... Except for Motorola. And HTC. And ...

to create a design that is actually _better_ than the iPad
You mean, add unnecessary elements to a touchscreen device? Like Apple's advisor recommended "Make it not flat, or not rectangular, or not clutter-free front surface".
This minimal design is where tablets were headed for a long time. Even Samsung's Q1EX tablet was already basically this, with corrections for thickness limited by technology at that time.
Re:who wins? by BlackCreek · 2012-02-03 00:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"? How many digital photo displays are "screens with a black border around it"? Oh, perhaps you meant "a rectangular screen with a black border around it and a single round button"?
FYI, All older Samsung TVs (I own one) were "rectangular screens with a black border around it with a single round button in the middle". Or you are going to say that as the tablets have a touch screen, any other design without a touch screen won't apply?
Do you also believe that mobile video calling was invented by Apple when they released the "iphone with a video camera in the front"?
Re:who wins? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-02-03 00:45 · Score: 4, Funny

What companies like Apple spends on lawyers I spent on armaments. Since then I now own an aircraft carrier (full complement of aircraft and fully manned) and I can invade a small country, and of course give the appropriate treatment for lawyers :)

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:who wins? by basecastula+ · 2012-02-03 00:46 · Score: 2

Black market win
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:06 · Score: 0

Short term, yes, they win. But long term, they're hurting the patent industry. Eventually their very public bickering will change that compltely. When that happens, they'll have to innovate or evaporate.
The only problem with this statement is the "eventually" bit. It implies that goverments watch out for the interests of the population. It won't happen locally, but something like the EU can do it.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:08 · Score: 0

As long as they cross license their pathetically banal patents and keep 90% of the market in the hands of a handful of corporations, they both win.
It may be ok to defensively patent stuff, but this has gone too far.
Re:who wins? by andydread · 2012-02-03 01:19 · Score: 4, Informative

.

Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar. And it is obvious that Apple doesn't like it. Whether Apple has a case legally or not doesn't matter that much; the message sent is "if you try to sell devices that we think are copying our devices then you'll end up in court, and we make it as inconvenient as possible for you". There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't because the _reason_ for suing is not the patents, but the similarity of the product design.
As far as "Other tablets do _not_ look that similar" goes Apple would beg to differ.
Yes apple is anti-competitive in the fact that they will drag you into court over trivial similarities. They took the very common flat slate concept and filed a patent on it. One thing they are very good at is using the ideas and concepts of others and claiming them as their own while convincing the faithful that it was all their idea. Prior art be damned. Keep swallowing the talking points of Apple's PR dept. though don't let the facts get in the way.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:30 · Score: 0

"Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar."
Samsung used one of their existing design languages evident in previous products that pre-date the iphone, and applied it to a tablet form factor. Just because Apple was first to market in a form factor that is an obvious evolution due to technology improvements, doesn't make them innovative.
Re:who wins? by bigbangnet · 2012-02-03 01:39 · Score: 0

In some sense both Apple and Samsung win. Small startup companies coming into this area now have to explain how they would take on either of these companies in an IP lawsuit and / or get licenses which will be so expensive their products become uncompetitive. The entire group of major technology patent holders is a cartel working together to steal from consumers by increasing prices and reducing the ability of the market to change faster than they are able to keep up with. With patent lawsuits like this running around they can afford to reduce R&D and just make money together with more limited competition.
Sure, Apple and Microsoft are deeply evil, but Samsung is a at least bit evil too, and Google is building up a huge load of patents whilst failing to give a clear statement and guarantee to protect free software companies, so even they are having evil effects. This is a bit like American Politics. Just because one side is bad, doesn't mean the other side isn't bad too. You don't become fair and balanced by asking a wolf and a hyena whether the sheep wants to be eaten.
I wanted to type that, thank you for saying that before I did. All of what you said is true...so awfully true.
Re:who wins? by bigbangnet · 2012-02-03 01:47 · Score: 0

Can you target SOPA too ? Just make sure they piss in their pants at least lmao
Re:who wins? by poetmatt · 2012-02-03 01:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since when did google ever have to give a statement to what they're doing outside of what they already did?
They said "we will not sue people with our patents". And have they ever sued with their patents, offensively?
no.
Apple sure as hell has. Samsung sure as hell has fought back. Barnes and Noble fought back.
Google isn't like American Politics, that's exactly why every "evil" company in the US hates them and has tried to shut them down continually, via corruption/bribery/lobbying/outright lies.
So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
Re:who wins? by fedos · 2012-02-03 01:55 · Score: 1

But long term, they're hurting the patent industry.
So everybody wins!
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:30 · Score: 0

Fox Books moves in around the corner.
Meg Ryan: "This is actually a GOOD thing..."
Jean Sapleton rolls eyes.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:52 · Score: 0

You forgot to mention: the users.
Re:who wins? by pond0123 · 2012-02-03 03:11 · Score: 1

No; it wasn't about a round cornered rectangle. It was the shape, and the materials, and the colour scheme of the device; and the arrangement, colour and design of the icons; and the style of the packaging; and a whole lot more besides, all in one go.
People keep talking about the LG smartphone that predated iPhone by a month to "prove" that Apple copied LG. Yet LG's icons were minimalistic and monochrome, quite unlike Apple's. And that matters because it is all part of the court case; it was about all of these points taken as a whole. We look at Samsung's earlier F700 smartphone and see a grid of icons in black/white outline minimalist style, just like LG... Suspiciously similar one might say. Then iPhone comes along with full colour, glossy icons - e.g. green with an old-school style phone handset for Call; purple with two joined eighth notes for music; that kind of thing. And lo, the next thing you know, Samsung's phones suddenly have the same thing.
For example: Green with an old school handset for call. Purple with two joined eighth notes for music. Not black and white / minimalist, or a single colour theme across all icons. Not an icon representing, say, the smartphone itself for 'call' - their old F700 did that, but suddenly it's an old school handset post-iPhone - or a picture of a person with lines radiating out as if shouting; or a bazllion other icon designs that have existed over the years Not a single note, or a different note type for music. They even changed from the first note being higher pitched than the second in the F700, to the first note being lower pitched, which just happens to be the same as the iPhone. Suddenly, Samsung's using the same icons and even the same damned colours as Apple were - they even had to redesign the standard Android icons to do it. Default Android 2.0: Blue phone icon, old-school handset, pointing down and to the right. iPhone: Green, old-school handset pointing up and to the right. Samsung: Green, up and to the right. Android music icon: A speaker with a treble clef in a sort of 3D style. iPhone and Samsung: Purple, musical notes, as discussed. Why? Why did Samsung feel the need to redesign the icons this way? Was this all just by random chance and accident on Samsung's part?
So it's not just about a round cornered rectangle, or a grid of icons. As often pointed out, things like the Palm Pilot (and the Newton!) did that kind of launcher style years and years ago. But not with so many near-identical icons just appearing "by accident", to the point where a casual non-geek shopper might well mistake one device for the other. Regardless of Apple's moral obligations - which are a different matter entirely - legally it was clear. They won. The 10.1 was blocked. The judgement was upheld on appeal. Samsung redesigned the device and, even if the box and the icons were just the same, that was enough for it to no longer infringe on all of the points in the trade dress suit when taken together, so the 10.1N couldn't be blocked.
According to the court, legally - if not morally - Apple were right and Samsung were wrong. Samsung had to change their design. Apple tried again (definitely gaining asshat points) but failed, because now, Samsung had changed the design enough to be legally in the clear.
Re:who wins? by Theaetetus · 2012-02-03 03:14 · Score: 1

> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
Re:who wins? by BlackCreek · 2012-02-03 03:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
The question is whether the physical design of a tablet such as Apple's deserves to be a "registered design". Apple has claimed to own the design concept of a tablet with a "thin screen with a rounded black border". My point is that that is downright bullshit, there were tablet concept designs that looked just like that, and I believe that the fact that there TVs and photo displays that looked just like that are pertinent.
Try googling for the suggestions they made in the US about how a tablet would have to be NOT to infringe their design. The answer was hilarious. IIRC the judge in California told Apple to take a hike.
Re:who wins? by idontgno · 2012-02-03 03:37 · Score: 1

In some sense both Apple and Samsung win. Small startup companies coming into this area now have to explain how they would take on either of these companies in an IP lawsuit and / or get licenses which will be so expensive their products become uncompetitive.

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."
-- Kikuyu proverb

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:45 · Score: 0

If you call them "near-identical icons", you should see an eye doctor.
The music player icon you spent so much bytes to describe are only similar by that checklist, not so much if you actually look at them - abstract, flat purple backgrounds with radial lines, white notes inside white circle on iPhone, actual detailed cd, red notes beside for Samsung. Suddenly, when various combinations of discs/circles, "play" triangles and notes are common for music players, it is Apple's invention. As well as "green handset" for call icon. This is exactly what makes you fanboys funny, "It was our invention!". Here, find the fallacy.

1) Samsung has circle and notes in their icon
2) Apple has circle and notes in their icon
----
Ergo, Samsung copied Apple
Fun thing is that design claims, AFAIK, stuck only in German court, where judge ordered the injunction ex partia and with Apple's photoshopped
Oh, and about your pointing to F700 all the time. Do you really think it's the only Samsung phone and that all their phones had same design?
Re:who wins? by Asic+Eng · 2012-02-03 03:50 · Score: 1

Depends, in Germany the injunction was only against Samsung's German subsidiary. So all the shops happily continued selling their stock, people could order tablets online and have them shipped etc. Merely Samsung Germany couldn't import and distribute the devices anymore.
However it certainly would have been possible for Apple to get similar bans against importers and retailers. They just didn't bother to do so. Of course retailers would have been pissed at Apple if they had done that - so maybe they didn't want to harm their relationship with them or maybe they figured it wouldn't be worth the effort to try and stop sales completely rather than just reducing them.
Re:who wins? by rtfa-troll · 2012-02-03 04:34 · Score: 1

Since when did google ever have to give a statement to what they're doing outside of what they already did?
They said "we will not sue people with our patents". And have they ever sued with their patents, offensively?
Citation needed; I have never seen that stated clearly. I have seen them give certain specific patents to certain specific patent pools but I haven't seen them give such a blanket statement. To be frank, they would be stupid to since it would rule out protecting small android companies from other companies which were threatening them in novel ways.
I'm not asking for a complete denial though, so please link to this statement of yours and I will see.
Now; why should they give such a statement? Because people may be working in areas related to Google's patents and might choose not to release free software because they are afraid of being sued by Google. A statement from Google that that won't happen to people who agree not to initiate patent suits against Google and their partners and/or who release their software under free software licenses could be designed to make those people feel safe whilst at the same time leaving the value of the patents open for Google's defense against outside threats.

no.
Apple sure as hell has. Samsung sure as hell has fought back. Barnes and Noble fought back.
Google isn't like American Politics, that's exactly why every "evil" company in the US hates them and has tried to shut them down continually, via corruption/bribery/lobbying/outright lies.
So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
My user name says "troll" so that's hardly like you came up with an amazing new insult, but my message is clear and if you can't address it clearly then it's you who's losing the debate.
To be 100% clear; If you can find a statement by Google that the guarantees not to sue at least free software authors who are not involved in the IP wars and really all companies which remain neutral then I will apologise here unreservedly. If there isn't such a legally binding statement then the build up of a patent stockpile at Google will always represent a threat for the future in that their company or their patents can end up in the hands of someone else. This is a threat that they can instantly neutralise but have, according to my understanding, chosen not to.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 04:40 · Score: 1

Well, you are quite right in that Apple's claims don't have enough merits when it comes to the "screens with black borders around them" produced by most of the manufacturers they are suing.
But Samsung... Samsung is in a different league. They, and onlythey, are blatantly copying Apple in many aspects of their products. Look for example at these pictures. That's much more than a "screen with a black borders around them". It's the exact shape and almost exact size of the AC adapter (though not the color), the packaging, the cables, the shape, size and plugging mechanism of the proprietary connector at the non-USB end of that cable, some of the apps that come with the system.
Again: when it comes to LG, Motorola, and HTC it is pretty much all about Apple claiming to own the design of a "screen with a black borders around them". When it comes to Samsung, there's much more than that.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 05:06 · Score: 1

(...) actual detailed cd, red notes beside for Samsung.

Yes, you can see the exact icon you are describing in most pictures of Samsung devices, for example this one on Samsung's website. It's not similar at all to the "Music" icon in iOS devices except for the musical notes, but... it seems like the red (fuchsia, actually) sibling of the icons used historically by iTunes until rather recently. In fact, except for the CD being less tilted and the notes being a little smaller, that icon is pretty much identical to the old iTunes ones.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 05:07 · Score: 0

I always felt this picture is Poe's law in action.
Just look at the top pic with known false accusation (it's not a Samsung shop, it's Samsung's corner in a bigger electronic store with store's wall decorations) and bottom pic which implies recording app with a microphone in background is Apple's invention.
Then there's all the other stuff, like power adapter, which came in this model with one release of Galaxy S II, look at this, for example, or the box, which could be two-piece with bottom nested in the lid, but they chose a sliding out one with a flap-cover on the inner box.
And then dumb fanboys jump at it and gladly shove it to anyone as The Definite Proof, when it's just a definite proof of mindless Apple bias.
Re:who wins? by Theaetetus · 2012-02-03 05:10 · Score: 1

> Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar.
A rectangular screen with a black border around it. Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?
You're dodging the question... He wasn't talking about whether Apple invented that design. He said that Apple created the iPad, and that Samsung created a tablet that looks highly similar to the iPad, more so than any other tablet. Those are all true, regardless of what you think of the novelty of the patent.
The question is whether the physical design of a tablet such as Apple's deserves to be a "registered design". Apple has claimed to own the design concept of a tablet with a "thin screen with a rounded black border". My point is that that is downright bullshit, there were tablet concept designs that looked just like that, and I believe that the fact that there TVs and photo displays that looked just like that are pertinent.
No, that's a different question. Look at it this way - in a lawsuit over a patent, there are actually two things that have to be shown: (i) that the patent is valid; and (ii) that the patent is infringed. He was talking about number two, you're talking about number one. They're both legitimate discussions, but they're different.

Try googling for the suggestions they made in the US about how a tablet would have to be NOT to infringe their design. The answer was hilarious. IIRC the judge in California told Apple to take a hike.
That was in the German case IIRC, not California. And Samsung incorporated one of those suggestions in the 10.1N, so it's apparently not that hilarious.
Re:who wins? by PaladinAlpha · 2012-02-03 05:48 · Score: 1

No, the statement from Apple with the list "suggestions" for not infringing their design patents was in California. The statement makes the argument, further, that elements such as thinness and rounded corners in a portable device are not "functional" and hence patentable.
Apple also tried to ban the 10.1N, so they clearly thought that was not enough.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 06:12 · Score: 0

OK, let's ignore that you didn't check your links and thus they don't really show what you wanted us to see.

Then there's all the other stuff, like power adapter, which came in this model with one release of Galaxy S II, look at this, for example, or the box, which could be two-piece with bottom nested in the lid, but they chose a sliding out one with a flap-cover on the inner box.
Of course the person that gathered the collection of pictures chose the ones where Samsung is blatantly copying Apple and ignoring the instances where Samsung is clearly not copying Apple. The fact that they don't always copy Apple doesn't prove anything. "Your honor, my client is clearly innocent even though he was caught red-handed stabbing the victim, because after all he has met thousands of other people throughout his life and he didn't murder any of them!"
As a matter of fact, the fact that Samsung (and others) can produce products (and packaging, and software) that are very different from Apple's is proof that coming out with original products is quite possible, and actually not that hard. Nothing highlights more the similarities between, say, the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy S II than spending some time with both phones and an HTC or Motorola Android phone at the same time. The same goes for the iPad, the Galaxy Tab, and pretty much any non-Samsung tablet in the market. Then you see that those two Samsung products are disturbingly similar to the Apple ones and shockingly different from their Android brethren.

And then dumb fanboys jump at it and gladly shove it to anyone as The Definite Proof, when it's just a definite proof of mindless Apple bias.
And then dumb fandroids point out at products where Samsung did not copy Apple and gladly shove it to anyone as The Definite Proof, when it's just a definite proof of mindless anti-Apple bias.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 06:37 · Score: 0

Just because Google hasn't sued anyone as themselves doesn't mean they haven't been party to it. They transferred a number of patents to HTC which were then used to sue Apple. Hopefully these patents were transferred with very strict language because it would be kind of sad if HTC used these for "evil".
I personally view this transferring of patents as much more reprehensible than suing using the questionable patents you created yourself, but that's just me.

So yes, they made a statement, and you're a fucking troll.
Good God, man. Settle down.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 07:39 · Score: 0

I'll assume we're still talking about "It's right to ban the Samsung products in Germany because they copy all these parts" where applicable.
You assume wrong. I never said Samsung's products should be banned.

In short, you're saying "It is right, because it's not only rounded corners, but all of these things [pic here]". Sounds reasonable, but - the parts with similarities in these pics are all in different products and in different models.
Here, for example, a german dude unpacking a Galaxy S II. Note how it's absolutely the same power adapt... Oh, wait, that was in T-Mobile's release.
Again, you assume wrong. I never said all those items detailed in the picture come from the same product. I did imply that they all come from either Samsung or Apple, and that the Apple products precede their Samsung counterparts.

And even then, I won't even start on stupidity of "they copied the power brick to fool customers!" claim as opposed to, say, "they ordered it from same OEM".
The manufacturers don't design anything. They only manufacture based on the designs submitted by their clients. Apple designed that power adapter, not the manufacturer.

In other words, you say "Here, see this proof why they should be banned!" and without a doubt link to pic that contains unrelated shop, similar power brick, differently constructed boxes, standard connector and a recording app with a mic, all from different devices.
Again, I never said Samsung's products should be banned. And I never said the different items in the picture are part of the same product.
All I said was that unlike HTC, Motorola, LG, Nokia, and RIM, it is very obvious that Samsung has copied some things from Apple very blatantly. That's all I said. The rest is all in you mind.
Re:who wins? by poetmatt · 2012-02-03 07:55 · Score: 1

wha? HTC didn't sue apple, that was a counterclaim in the lawsuit apple has against HTC.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:18 · Score: 1

Then there's the cable, which looks like standard PDMI connectors.
Oh, I forgot to say that you are also wrong about that: the Samsung Galaxy Tab does NOT have a PDMI connector. In fact, the connector is almost identical to the iPhone/iPad connector (the pins themselves are flipped across, otherwise they are identical) and totally different to a PDMI connector, as you can see in the pictures here.
See? Another example of people designing an original alternative to an Apple part vs. Samsung copied it with minimum modification.
(Damned Slashdot is putting me on a time out for posting too fast.)
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:50 · Score: 0

And again, you missed the whole point - you link to a pic full of non-proofs and still go on about "very obvious blatant copying".
By the way, why are all you fanboys so hung up on that power adapter? Every time this pic pops up, it's the last straw you hold on until the end. I mean, just a good pic of similar two part box would have a much stronger impact. But instead it's "see how they steal Apple's innovation in power bricks and USB cables", which just elicits a "what".
Just as I repeated twice already, you hold on to an obvious troll pic.

All I said was that unlike HTC, Motorola, LG, Nokia, and RIM, it is very obvious that Samsung has copied some things from Apple very blatantly. That's all I said. The rest is all in you mind.
Well, blame your own bad writing then, as you were talking about "Apple claims ... not just black rounded rectangle" all the way through, which would only apply to the suits. None of what's in that pic is amongst "Apple claims", because even packaging, IIRC, is not a part in those.
Re:who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 10:22 · Score: 0

Oh, is that so?
Well, now if you'd just explain why Samsung copied Apple's (or maybe SanDisk's) connector, flipping the pin pad and changing the pinout, and how copying said cable would help them. I doubt that it was for reducing expenses, because even though the connector part is surely mass produced anyways, as it's used by at least 3 companies, they still had to design their own pin-out and protocol.
The only scenario I can imagine is "Oh god, I thought I bough an Apple cable, but it's actually Samsung! Now I'll have to buy a Galaxy Tab!"
That picture is just hilarious, fanboys running around with "Bu-bu-but they copied the connector! And the box! And the power plug!", while the actual claims of Apple vs. Samsung get thrown out of the court one by one.
For example, Community Design patent is out by the latest decision to uphold the ban:

(via google translate) On the other hand Samsung did not infringe the registered design from Apple. With regard to the design desires, the Senate - unlike the district court - also adopted mother about the Samsung in South Korea, a Community jurisdiction. The German subsidiary of Samsung should be considered a "branch" of Samsung's mother. In the name of the German subsidiary as a "sales office" on the Internet to Samsung Korea must stand firm. However, the scope of Apple's design is limited. So wise an old U.S. patent application, the so-called "Ozolins design," which had been requested by another company for a flat, on a rimless flat already. Incidentally, the distinction "Galaxy Tab 10.1" sufficiently clear from the declared design of Apple. Thus, there is the design applied aesthetically perceptible in two parts, a shell and a front panel covering it. The "Galaxy Tab 10.1" by contrast, was constructed in three parts, it consists of a front, a back and a verklammernden frame.
Re:who wins? by The+Evil+Atheist · 2012-02-03 14:45 · Score: 1

And you must be a Apple fanboi completely beyond the event horizon of the Reality Distortion Field to fail to understand that Apple still could not have designed their tablet completely free from influence of past designs, INCLUDING RECTANGULAR SCREEN WITH BLACK BORDER AROUND IT. Apple did not invent the look. Dumbass.

--
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Re:who wins? by Truedat · 2012-02-03 21:50 · Score: 0

And you're trapped in a google morality distortion field, slowly everyone is beginning to wake up to it.

Any surprises here? by goose-incarnated · 2012-02-02 22:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just like in the SCO vs World case, we all know what the eventual outcome will be - it will just take time, thats all, before Apples worthless patents to be deemed as such in all courts. Patenting Black-Rectangular-with-rounded-Corners-computing-Device was never going to turn out well.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.

Re:Any surprises here? by thegarbz · 2012-02-02 23:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

This isn't a "Black-Rectangular-with-rounded-Corners-computing-Device" patent suit it's a "Hey-look-touchscreens-can-also-do-this" patent suit.
Re:Any surprises here? by pond0123 · 2012-02-02 23:13 · Score: 0, Troll

This tired old rounded corners whine again?
It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
Re:Any surprises here? by siddesu · 2012-02-02 23:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

No surprise at all. But this is the goal of Apple in the first place. The smartphones and the tablets are like perishable goods -- the pace of new product development is fierce, so delaying a product by a few months has a huge impact on the bottom line. And that is what Apple is shooting for with patents that are at most borderline bogus.
This and a ruthless, magical marketing gives them a not insignificant edge, the quality of their products notwithstanding.
Re:Any surprises here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

give me a fucking break. my bicycle is black and grey with silver edges and rounded corners. From that list it's in violation too.
the 4x4 grid of icons with another row of 4 at the bottom is a bit of a rip off, but a novel invention worthy of a patent? you've got to be smoking so much crack I'm not sure how you're still alive. ... I sure hope you're just trolling and not completely bat shit kool-aid insane
Re:Any surprises here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's about much, much more than that
LOL, right, it's also about "The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark" and "Color gray appears as a rectangle at the front center of the device [the screen]". So much more specific decorative design elements!
Kinda looks like you don't even read what you link to.
Second page especially shows the absurdity of "copied wholesale" claims, those are god damn icons of god damn generic ideas, and not even very alike at that. The only icon with similar _feel_ is call icon, but then it's most generic of them, not that many ways to do 'green and raised handset for "accept", red and hung up handset for "reject"'.
Re:Any surprises here? by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-02-02 23:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, I looked at that and hoped to find much, much more. Alas, I found much, much more of the same.
Most of the stuff they patented should be flat-out unpatentable. There were a few instances, such as in choice of icon colours, were I felt Samsung seemed to be needlessly imitating Apple's, but on the whole Apple seem to be trying to patent every nook and cranny they put on the damned iPhone. Some of these things are almost dictated by design constraints and natural analogues from prior OS, and some things are just part of a natural design trend towards minimalism.
I just wish everyone would stop trying to sue each other. It's god-damned ridiculous,

--
Would you like a slice of toast?
Re:Any surprises here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:41 · Score: 0

From your link:

Apple iPhone
Shown at Macworld Jan 2007
Release June 2007

Samsung F700
Shown and released Feb 2007

*The F700 was released about a month after the iPhone

They aren't even consistent with their misinformation and lies. Utter fail.
Re:Any surprises here? by dave1791 · 2012-02-02 23:48 · Score: 1

Goodness gracious! I'll grant the hardware similarities, but that link is comparing an old feature phone's OS UI with a not-heavily skinned Android phone. Those icons and that layout are stock Gingerbread. Aside from that and the use of gestures, the usage paradigms for iOS and Android (at least as of 4.0) are quite different and "how things flow" is also quite different.
Samsung's best defense here is probably a quick rollout of a 4.0 update.
Re:Any surprises here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 01:31 · Score: 0

The view is the natural design trend is a result of people getting paid to continue the R&D via the mechanism of the patent system.
Not that I don't have issues with the argument or don't agree it's gotten god-damned ridiculous, just that's the real-world money&legislature&courtrooms viewpoint you've got to address.
Re:Any surprises here? by Joce640k · 2012-02-03 01:36 · Score: 1

the 4x4 grid of icons with another row of 4 at the bottom is a bit of a rip off, but a novel invention worthy of a patent?
That wasn't even Samsung, it was "Android".

--
No sig today...
Re:Any surprises here? by Joce640k · 2012-02-03 01:41 · Score: 4, Informative

It's about much, much more than that:
Oh, bullshit. Talk abotu cherry picking... for every feature that's listed as 'similar' there I could list another one that isn't.
Apple:
Home button is round
Doesn't have camera on front
Doesn't have 'back' and 'menu' buttons
Samsung:
Home button is rectangular
Has camera on front (top right)
Has 'back' and 'menu' buttons
etc.
The profile is even better - it's nothing like an iPhone from the side. But you missed that.

--
No sig today...
Re:Any surprises here? by rtfa-troll · 2012-02-03 02:09 · Score: 5, Informative

This tired old rounded corners whine again?
It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
It's an interesting link; I've seen similar before but not thought about it much. When you look at it it really looks like Samsung is copying Apple. Very interesting is the change in the unboxing experience. It looks completely convincing.
Then you remember your first Nokia N95; a product released before the iPhone was available. Look at the Nokia unboxing experience which happens to be captured on the internet. Suddenly the audacity of Apple in claiming this as their own takes your breath.
Nothing under the sun is original; this is outrageous.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Any surprises here? by pond0123 · 2012-02-03 02:35 · Score: 0

I'm not saying I agree with Apple, just that I'm tired of the inane tirades. Samsung are apparently saints, with no prior history of ripping off other people's products at all and want to hand out rainbows and unicorns to everyone. Apple are clearly evil money grabbing tyrants who eat babies. It's just ridiculous. Both are enormous capitalist corporate entities with shareholders and a legal imperative to make as much money as possible in any way they can get away with. Neither are saints.
Anyway, this isn't about one company making a product with the basic form. Or same basic colour. Or having icons that just happen to use the same colours and styles. Or having very similar packaging. It is, amongst other things, a trade dress suit concerning a company that simultaneously introduced products that did all of those things at once and did so after a very similar looking product line became a success.
People sometimes say "but how different could it look?" - which just goes to show how deeply Apple have become embedded in the public psyche! We apparently can't even imagine how a tablet or smartphone might differ. How sad. I like the link I posted because it shows some examples of just precisely how they could differ! For that matter, so does Windows Phone 7 - a genuinely different take on a smartphone GUI.
Personally I much prefer innovation to imitation.
Apple might be wrong to pursue the action on several levels (for one thing, it seems to have raised the public profile of the products from Samsung and may have done Samsung more good than harm!). But the court agreed with them and that wasn't a bunch of armchair lawyers on an internet forum, that was a collection of professional lawyers (on both sides) and a courtroom of other skilled professionals who came to the conclusion that Apple had a case, so they blocked the 10.1. But not the 10.1N, because it was judged that this product differed sufficiently.
Morally right? Very questionable. Legally right? A judgement was made and upheld on subsequent appeal.
Moral rights versus legal rights are very different questions. Sadly much of the coverage of the Apple/Samsung spat on SlashDot seems to conflate the two issues. Evil Apple, suing Samsung? Legally, the court thought it was Samsung who were in the wrong.
Re:Any surprises here? by fedos · 2012-02-03 02:48 · Score: 1

Thank you for showing that it's not just the rounded corners part of the Apple patent that's frivolous, but the entire thing in whole and in part.
Re:Any surprises here? by cforciea · 2012-02-03 04:55 · Score: 1

My favorite part of that link is looking down at the tablet section and realizing that the only checks that are Galaxy Tab specific on this worthless piece of trash of a document are the ones for rounded corners. Thanks for making our point for us.
Re:Any surprises here? by pond0123 · 2012-02-03 06:27 · Score: 1

You realise there are three pages to that list, right? And you realise that the Galaxy Tab has the same problems with mysteriously cloned icon styles and colours as the Galaxy S? And you did get to the packaging bit on the third page, right? Right?
For the hard of thinking: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html
Yet your nonsense gets scored 2, while I'm modded to zero, troll. Apparently it isn't Apple with the reality distortion field, it's Slashdot. Once again, moral issues aside the fact is that a court of law found in Apple's favour and ruled in favour again on appeal. Only the 10.1N - the redesigned version - has not been blocked, when Apple were asshats and tried to block that too.
Re:Any surprises here? by Epimer · 2012-02-03 06:35 · Score: 1

Only if your bicycle is a "rectangular handheld digital mobile electronic device" too.
The list there is cumulative, it doesn't cover the individual elements in isolation.
Re:Any surprises here? by jrumney · 2012-02-03 14:50 · Score: 1

And regarding the tablets, Samsung's 10.1" is clearly designed primarily for landscape orientation (from the position of the logo, and camera), and does not have any home button, vs the iPad which is clearly designed for portrait (based on the home button position, and camera on iPad 2).

As an nexus owner... by BlackCreek · 2012-02-02 22:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

As the owner of a Galaxy Nexus bought from Amazon.DE and as a person that makes a living writing software, I am delighted to hear that Apple (or any other company) will have to make their 'buck' by making awesome products, and will not be allowed to curb competition because some idiot allowed them to patent 'list scrolling', or "whatever-shit-we-did-before BUT NOW ON A TOUCH-SCREEN MOBILE PHONE".

Re:As an nexus owner... by dave1791 · 2012-02-02 23:52 · Score: 2

There should be a moratorium on gesture patents. Right now, we're in a state where we can't say that any new developments would be non-obvious to an expert. You could make a list of a million gesture controls over a couple of beers.

The only advantage iPhone users have over Android by phonewebcam · 2012-02-02 23:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is that they get to see what's coming in their handsets a year from now by looking at the current top end Android models on sale. I hear NFC is undergoing the usual transformation from "iPhone users don't need that" to "our amazing innovation" in the next model, the same way multitasking, speech recognition, widgets and usable notifications did.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by dave1791 · 2012-02-02 23:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Wait! iOS 5 has usable notifications? You could have fooled me!

And apple's claims haven't either by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:36 · Score: 0

So it's merely claimed that Samsung took the idea from Apple.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by geogob · 2012-02-02 23:37 · Score: 1

This case is a farce. The claim is related to a patent on multiple pager (yes, those things that display a phone number) synchronization over wireless networks. Motorola claims that iCloud on cellphone network infringes this patent. It illustrates so well the fabulous world of patent infringement court cases.

iPhone sales banned in germany because of Motorola by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:40 · Score: 0

In other news, apple was banned from selling the all iphones except
the 4s because of Motorolas lawsuit.
in the german apple online shop, the iPhone 4s is the only availible iPhone.

store.apple.com/de

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FMotorola-erwirkt-Vertriebsverbot-fuer-iPhones-und-iPad-1427712.html&act=url

google translation of german it news

Wow.. by Adult+film+producer · 2012-02-02 23:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Apple is now a Patent Troll... have they so given up on innovation that they can on live on shady backroom deals and the charity of a judge?

Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-02 23:47 · Score: 1, Funny

It's going to be a major problem for Samsung if Apple stops innovating. I mean, Samsung might actually have to do some R&D!
Re:Wow.. by MrHanky · 2012-02-03 00:44 · Score: 1

Sure. Apple invented the retina display! Samsung's AMOLED is just a cheap knock-off! Seriously, you're a despicable fraud.
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-03 02:19 · Score: 1

Whoooooooooooooosh!
Sorry, I almost got sucked into the low pressure void there.
I guess I'll have to go back to putting giant "disclaimer: this is joke, cupcake" on my obviously satirical posts.
Seriously, you just have no sense of humour.
DISCLAIMER: I think Apple's patent lawsuits against Samsung are silly.
Re:Wow.. by MrHanky · 2012-02-03 02:40 · Score: 1

You think I didn't see it was a joke just because you failed to make it funny? You think you're a satirist just because you make a joke about Apple's competition? You fail to see that you're still nothing but a shill, despite paying lip service to what anyone with half an eye can see is plain obvious?
Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:07 · Score: 0

Well, just two weeks ago you "agreed with the Samsung copy suit". I'm pretty sure you also seriously linked to that hilarious "look at the power brick, mic background in recording app and non-Samsung owned italian store with Apple icons!" pic as well in relation to that suit earlier.
Have some integrity with your fanatism, at least. Throwing in a flamebait just to backpedal into "It's all a joke, you guys!" is too weak and close to "LOL I TROL U" exit.
Re:Wow.. by Truedat · 2012-02-03 03:16 · Score: 0

Apple is now a Patent Troll... have they so given up on innovation that they can on live on shady backroom deals and the charity of a judge?
And still you don't get it, this is much closer:
Apple is now a Patent Troll http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/apple-seen-hurting-shareholders-with-jobs-s-thermonuclear-patent-war-tech.html
Google is now a Patent Troll http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-authorized-motorola-to-seek.html
Samsung is now a Patent Troll http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/eu-launches-full-blown-investigation-of.html
Microsoft is now a Patent Troll http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2012/jan12/01-12LGPR.mspx
However, I don't think any of them are Patent Trolls since you can't tell me that any one of them don't research and innovate to a large degree. But I guess "Patent Troll" has now become subverted, just like "Bricked" did.
BTW I feel I have to say this: I DON'T agree with what they are doing, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and selective representation of the facts.
Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:47 · Score: 0

LOL I TROLL U
Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 04:04 · Score: 0

Not really. Samsung can find inspiration from others, like LG. Remember LG Prada? You know, the tablet-like phone announced before the original iPhone?
Re:Wow.. by Dishevel · 2012-02-03 04:06 · Score: 1

Do you really think that icon placement, rounded corners, and an unboxing experience should in any way be patentable?
This is what you believe?
Are you sure you are just not doing everything possible to feel the warm fuzzies for your chosen side?

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Wow.. by Osgeld · 2012-02-03 06:21 · Score: 1

now? lolz
this is the company that was patenting pull down menus back in the 80's even though they stole it fro xerox
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-03 10:47 · Score: 1

You're trying too hard.
Good effort though.
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-03 10:52 · Score: 1

I've never linked to a "lolz look at this" graphic - you will not find such a link from me, since I do not post them, as much as you're "pretty sure", I can assure you that you are mistaken.
I should have clarified - the ridiculous patent lawsuits [a new way to display data/a new way to show unlocking/a new way to open files... on a touchscreen!] are what I take major issue with. While Apple's pursuit of Samsung over the *design* issue is another matter (albeit one that I agree with Apple's position, if not their choice of direction, re: lawsuit - they should have simply left it).
Also, you forgot to log in.
It seems like it's simply not possible to hold any position other than the diametric opposed ends, according to anonymous cowards. The world is seldom that black and white.
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-03 10:56 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the LG Prada, announced at around the same time - such that the iPhone and the LG Prada were displayed to the world within one month or so of each other - clearly the iPhone was prototyped/redesigned completely in that one month between Apple seeing the Prada and their unveiling! You've cracked the case, Holmes!
You also forgot to log in.
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-03 10:58 · Score: 1

Not at all.
I was going for satire. Apparently it's hard to tell actual facetiousness from actual argued positions on slashdot any more, such is the extremism. Pity.
Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 16:18 · Score: 0

My bad. You just took "the box, the connector, the power brick" seriously and they were not even parts of actual claims, just parts of that pic. Patent lawsuits, on the other hand, are silly. Copying connector, power brick, green phone icon and rounded black rectangle is not. Got it. Sorry.
Re:Wow.. by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 01:10 · Score: 1

And a link in my post is.... where?
Oh, you're counting *discussion* of the images and designs to be equivalent to linking to them! Ok! Bit of a goalpost move, but I can go with that.
Also, you forgot to log in! Is this so your post history won't be accessible via google? Pretty basic error on your part I think.
Re:Wow.. by Hentes · 2012-02-04 03:07 · Score: 1

Apple was never an innovation company but a design company. They didn't make new things but they did make old things much better.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 23:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is one of those "What have the Romans ever done for us questions" Well there's iBooks of course. And iTunes. And a much better ecosystem generally.
Ok but apart from that
Well there's regular OS updates. And no malware.
Ok, but apart from that
No fragmentation
Ok but..
Siri

Basically the choice is an emotional one, not a logical one. It comes down to whether you value hardware features/tinkering or content/UI/general slickness more. Me, those days I *much* prefer the latter, but then I'm quite old by geek standards. 20 years ago I'd probably have preferred a phone I could tinker with more for one that just does what I want. But hen I ran feeBSD as my desktop OS for a while, and I wouldn't do that now either...

Android is a copycat OS. To pretend otherwise is stupid. Equally, whilst I can see why Apple might be pissed that one of their main clients has ripped off their designs and sold them as their own, I don't think a patent war really helps anyone. Time to settle on sums of money and move on, I reckon.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by slydder · 2012-02-03 00:01 · Score: 4, Funny

omg. you live with them don't you? they got you as you were going through the terminal after your flight landed. What's your name I'll try and contact your parents for you so they can come rescue you.

--
IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content

Ba-dum- by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:02 · Score: 0

Tsssh.

*applause and cheers from hardcore Apple fanboys' seats, awkward silence from the rest of audience*

You totally should go touring with this stand-up act.

FYI, Samsung's R&D funding is somewhere in $7e9-9e9 range, while Apple's is in $1.5e9-3e9. Surely all those are going into advanced copy paper research.

Re:Ba-dum- by slydder · 2012-02-03 00:04 · Score: 1

no. search and replace.

--
IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content
Re:Ba-dum- by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:35 · Score: 1

To bad that MS owns the patent on search and replace.
Re:Ba-dum- by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-03 00:58 · Score: 1

s/cool thing nerds have been using for years/cool thing dumbed down for grandmas and crippled in the process/g

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:11 · Score: 0

Umm apple is samsung's client. Apple buys stuff from Samsung not the other way around.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:22 · Score: 0

Siri

Basically the choice is an emotional one, not a logical one.

Apparently. People seem to love the easy way and don't think about why it is made that way. I myself know how it could be done before the everything in my browser/cloud started. And I really don't like where it is heading. What is the difference of Siri and a keylogger? Can you be sure the data doesnt leak?

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Xest · 2012-02-03 00:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:28 · Score: 0

"Is that they get to see what's coming in their handsets a year from now by looking at the current top end Android models on sale"

Not true. iPhone users always get software updates for three years after the phone was released, regardless of carrier. iOS is also still slicker than Android, and the ecosystem is more coherent.

Battle of Waterloo: Won on Playing Fields of Eton by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-02-03 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Technology Battles Today: Won in the Courts . . . not in the labs.

The first step in creating a fantastic, new tech gadget . . . is making sure all the legal issues are worked out, even before you start developing and idea. If some court is going to block you down the road, there is no point in investing in a new project.

Ladies and Gentlemen, lawyers are now the first troops at the front of technology development!

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by sosume · 2012-02-03 00:37 · Score: 1

It's a case of pot meets kettle.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well there's iBooks of course.

Google Books.

And iTunes.

Google Music.

And a much better ecosystem generally.

Getting an app rejected because it competes or might compete with a future Apple app is awesome.

Well there's regular OS updates.

Just like Android.

And no malware.

And no choice.

No fragmentation

And no customization.

Siri

Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo

It comes down to whether you value hardware features/tinkering or content/UI/general slickness more.

Android offers all of that.

Android is a copycat OS. To pretend otherwise is stupid.

Except the Android OS predates iOS.

German courts have made more important news today by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 00:50 · Score: 1

How is this news? That is nothing, similar decisions have been happening every week since Apple started it's crusade against the Android.
On the other hand, Motorola, today, actually managed to ban all 3G powered, iCloud enabled iDevices, also in Germany.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/motorola-wins-german-injunction-against.html

Seriously, I never thought I would see a court with balls big enough to say to Apple: "No, You didn't invent crap. Now GTFO".

Defensive publication by tepples · 2012-02-03 01:01 · Score: 2

You could make a list of a million gesture controls over a couple of beers.

Then make such a list, post it to the Internet, and get it into Wayback. This is the start of defensive publication.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Pieroxy · 2012-02-03 01:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!

So you didn't read Apple's patent claims, just what was said on Slashdot. Congratulations.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

fscking software patents... by advocate_one · 2012-02-03 01:07 · Score: 1

they're still dancing about trying to invalidate individual ones for things like obviousness and prior art instead of going to kill them all as they are merely mathematics and can all be reduced to mathematical expressions which aren't patentable...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.

Re:fscking software patents... by mr_gorkajuice · 2012-02-03 02:36 · Score: 1

Every piece of hardware can be reduced to formations of physical matter, which isn't patentable.
Re:fscking software patents... by Hentes · 2012-02-04 03:10 · Score: 1

Theoretically software is also not patentable in Europe. In practice, however, it depends on the country. Germany accepts software patents and they are strong enough that noone will say anything about it.

How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0? by tepples · 2012-02-03 01:11 · Score: 2

Well there's regular OS updates.

Just like Android.

One- and two-year-old phones are far likely to get an operating system update if they're "iPhone" or "Nexus" brand. Any other brand of Android phone is at the mercy of the often reluctant manufacturer. The iPhone 3GS was introduced in the second quarter of 2009 but still runs the latest iOS. How many phones from that era run Android 2.3 "Gingerbread", let alone Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich"? See previous Slashdot stories about abandonment and excuses.

Except the Android OS predates iOS.

In what sense? The first Android phone to be sold was HTC Dream, in the fourth quarter of 2008. The first iPhone to ship with the App Store was the iPhone 3G, introduced four months earlier.

crafty move by sl4shd0rk · 2012-02-03 01:33 · Score: 1

I keep wondering what apple's drive is for stifling competition through use of litigation mired. Perhaps if they can control the mobile and tablet platforms there will be no way for any other entity to offer alternatives. Imagine the leverage you would have if you decide certain services *coughgooglecough* just don't quite work right on the platform you control. You can call the shots then.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Walter+White · 2012-02-03 02:06 · Score: 4, Informative

English coverage at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/motorola-mobility-wins-second-german-ruling-against-apple.html

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, it's almost as stupid as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners and getting something banned over it!

So you didn't read Apple's patent claims, just what was said on Slashdot. Congratulations.

With that in mind, what do you think of the case of the original iPhone looking very much like the LG Prada, which was clearly the first design taking phones in the "iPhone design direction"? LG wasn't so litigious as Apple, so it haven't been tried in courts around the world, but the "rip-off" is at least on similar level as Samsung and iPads. Should iPhone have been banned?

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by danbob999 · 2012-02-03 02:14 · Score: 2

iTunes alone is a sufficient reason for not using the iPhone. I prefer a phone that I can plug in any PC and copy files too. No software or drivers to install.

Father Steve will hear of this, Germans!!! by elrous0 · 2012-02-03 02:29 · Score: 1, Troll

He will return one day! And when he does, you'll have to answer for this sin!!!

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:German courts have made more important news tod by Mark19960 · 2012-02-03 02:42 · Score: 1

Every time someone links to Florian god kills a kitten.
Please spare us.....

Germans can simply buy in the Netherlands on line by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:58 · Score: 0

EU: one currency, free flow of goods no customs.

Re:How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0 by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-02-03 03:00 · Score: 1

In what sense? The first Android phone to be sold was HTC Dream, in the fourth quarter of 2008. The first iPhone to ship with the App Store was the iPhone 3G, introduced four months earlier.

Note that GP didn't say "Android Phone was older than iPhone".

What he said was Android OS was older than iOS.

Possibly based on wiki articles about the two.

Android OS SDK was released on 12 NOV 2007.

iOS SDK was released on 6 MAR 2008.

Now, arguably, he should have read further and found that the first version of "what became iOS" was released on 29 JUN 2007.

Equally arguably, "what became iOS" wasn't necessarily iOS...

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:18 · Score: 0

One- and two-year-old phones are far likely to get an operating system update if they're "iPhone" or "Nexus" brand. Any other brand of Android phone is at the mercy of the often reluctant manufacturer. The iPhone 3GS was introduced in the second quarter of 2009 but still runs the latest iOS. How many phones from that era run Android 2.3 "Gingerbread", let alone Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich"? See previous Slashdot stories about abandonment [slashdot.org] and excuses [slashdot.org].

There is Cyanogenmod and a whole host of other ROMs available for all but the most underpowered or obscure Android devices. Flashing a firmware is straightforward and easy, so nobody is at the mercy of their phone's manufacturer unless they choose to be.

In what sense? The first Android phone to be sold was HTC Dream [wikipedia.org], in the fourth quarter of 2008. The first iPhone to ship with the App Store was the iPhone 3G, introduced four months earlier.

In the sense that Android OS existed before iOS. Android was being developed since 2003.

Re:German courts have made more important news tod by Truedat · 2012-02-03 03:22 · Score: 0

It's better than someone who refuses to engage with the arguments
...relying instead on a pithy quote that the gallery approves of.

iPad copied from Star Trek the Next Gerneration by edxwelch · 2012-02-03 03:22 · Score: 1

> Do you actually believe Apple invented the design of "screen with a black border around it"?

The design for the iPad was actually invented back in the 80's by Star Trek the Next Gerneration

Re:How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0 by CowTipperGore · 2012-02-03 03:30 · Score: 1

Any other brand of Android phone is at the mercy of the often reluctant manufacturer. The iPhone 3GS was introduced in the second quarter of 2009 but still runs the latest iOS. How many phones from that era run Android 2.3 "Gingerbread", let alone Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich"?

I agree that this is a problem with Android. Unfortunately, this is caused primarily by manufacturers and carriers that insist on building their own interface but are not prepared to support it. TouchWiz is why new Samsung phones aren't getting ICS or at least not in the near future. The hardware isn't an issue and getting ICS on it isn't an issue. The problem is porting TouchWiz and testing it on each device. The same goes for Sense from HTC and Motoblur from Motorola. This gets compounded even more by the carrier-specific crap that is bundled and often baked into the ROM.

I loved my original Droid because Verizon had not yet figured out how to crap it up. The Droid X was a mess, especially the eventual 2.3 update, thanks to Verizon. This is why I opted for the Galaxy Nexus when my X finally died.

Thankfully, the relative openness of Android allows options like CM for those of us who care about getting the newer versions of the OS (and removing the extra crap from the manufacturer and carrier). This isn't an answer for the average consumer, but it is better than nothing.

Re:How many older phones are on 2.3, let alone 4.0 by tepples · 2012-02-03 03:31 · Score: 1

Android OS existed before iOS. Android was being developed since 2003.

That depends on how you define "being developed". iOS is NeXTstep (first release 1989) customized for the iPhone and iPad. NeXTstep predates even Linux. If such customization doesn't count, look at what Android looked like before it was quickly ported to touch-screen phones shortly after iOS came out.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Pieroxy · 2012-02-03 05:37 · Score: 1

If LG didn't file a lawsuit, it's because they had no case whatsoever. Had they foreseen a potential gain, you can be sure they would have sued Apple to get it.

The main problem being that LG did not file patents around the design of their Prada, or to be more precise, no patents that any reasonable court would have found the iPhone infringed on.

It's not a matter of whether or not the Galaxy S II is closer to the iPhone than the iPhone was to the Prada, it's a matter of a court finding the Galaxy S II infringing on patents, while no patent holder found worthwhile to sue Apple on patents grounds. And be assured that given the success of the iPhone, if they infringed on any patent at all, someone would have asked for money.

All in all, it's Apple playing the patent game much better than LG. If you don't file patents, you can't sue on patent grounds.

And to be very honest, I think the Prada wasn't very close to the iPhone in so many ways that it is hard to see a real case here. The Prada was a piece of crap compared to the iPhone while the Galaxy S II is comparable to the latest iPhone.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by fedos · 2012-02-03 05:37 · Score: 1

Siri

Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo

Not to mention that Apple didn't develop Siri, they merely bought it out just before the Blackberry app was released and canceled on non-iOS development. So, in a sense, Apple didn't give us Siri, they took it away.

Re:The only advantage iPhone users have over Andro by goose-incarnated · 2012-02-03 06:09 · Score: 1

Guess you weren't notified...
Oh wait ...

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.

Samsung is defending themselves. by walterbyrd · 2012-02-03 06:33 · Score: 1

Apple and Samsung both are making a mess in the marketplace by trying to sue one another

Bullshit.

If a guy gets mugged by three other guys, and the victim of the mugging tries to fight back, would you blame the victim and muggers equally?

I don't think it's a coincidence that MS, Oracle, and Apple, all attacked Android at the same time, in the same way, and for the same reason.

Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-03 08:29 · Score: 1

but who is the mugger and who is the muggee? you imply that ms, oracle and apple are all ganging up on android. but they're fighting back because android mugged them.
Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by walshy007 · 2012-02-03 15:29 · Score: 1

Yes, because producing a product and selling it is so similar to suing someone because they had the gall to use a touch screen interface. I think it's pretty clear who's doing the mugging here, it isn't android.
Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-04 05:59 · Score: 1

I think it's pretty clear that you're an idiot and an android fan-tard. Theft is theft, and it's reasonable for the victims of theft to pursue restitution with the thief.
Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by walshy007 · 2012-02-04 09:57 · Score: 1

Theft deprives someone of property, so it is not theft. You may consider it wrong, but it is a farce to call samsung producing phones theft.
However what apple is doing _is_ depriving people of physical property.... so why is it so acceptable?
Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-04 18:07 · Score: 1

How is apple depriving people of physical property? Did they come into your home and confiscate your galaxy s? My precioussss...
Re:Samsung is defending themselves. by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-02-07 20:56 · Score: 0

I don't think it's a coincidence that MS, Oracle, and Apple, all attacked Android at the same time, in the same way, and for the same reason.
Because Samsung copied the design of the iPhone.

--
Fandroids hate facts.

Legal fees are insignificant by walterbyrd · 2012-02-03 06:38 · Score: 1

The only people who suffer are those of us looking to purchase products as all these legal fees go back into the bottom line price.

As I understand it, Apple made about $14 billion last quarter, and Apple's legal fees were about $100 million. And Samsung is a bigger company than Apple.

For Apple, legal fees spent on bogus lawsuits are a great investment. Are you kidding? Banning the competition for about what they spend making, and airing, one TV commercial?

Germans win by kawabago · 2012-02-03 06:40 · Score: 1

They can now all go out and buy a Galaxy device to see what Apple was so afraid of. It must be better than Apple's product or they wouldn't have been scared shitless by it.

Nope, Apple wins big by walterbyrd · 2012-02-03 06:42 · Score: 1

As I understand it, Apple earned about $14B last quarter, and only spent about $100 million on lawyer fees.

Forcing the competition out of the market for $100M is a huge bargain. Apple won.

Apple wins by walterbyrd · 2012-02-03 06:44 · Score: 1

Apple earns about $14B in a quarter, and only spends about $100M on legal fees.

Banning the competition with bogus lawsuits is huge bargain for Apple.

Those who can do, those who can't sue by davydagger · 2012-02-03 06:56 · Score: 1

When IP laws where first conceived it was to protect book manufactures durring the enlightenment. It protected the author against larger corporations with no ideas who could mill out books faster, and made it unfeasable to pay authors to write books without such protections.; Now, this is just the inverse, IP is used to strip inventors and authors from their rights, and suppress competition from distinct and seperate products. Of course IP law is tricky and difficult to manuver through. They have created a system where content, device and inovation is only legally acomplishable by those who have a lawyer corps large enough to win. big corporations, government research. Everyone else just gets sued out of their own ideas by frivolous law suits.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by scot4875 · 2012-02-03 08:37 · Score: 1

The main problem being that LG did not file patents around the design of their Prada, or to be more precise, no patents that any reasonable court would have found the iPhone infringed on.

So let me get this straight: it's ok for Apple to be a dick to LG and steal their shit because LG didn't have the foresight to think that patenting something as stupid as a rounded-corner rectangle and an icon-grid-based UI should be patentable, but it's *not* ok for Samsung to be a dick to Apple and 'copy' their shit because Apple patented said shit?

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by walshy007 · 2012-02-03 16:02 · Score: 1

If LG didn't file a lawsuit, it's because they had no case whatsoever. Had they foreseen a potential gain, you can be sure they would have sued Apple to get it.

Everything is a set of trade-offs, by being so litigious apple have a lot of well deserved hatred. For the most part their users are too naive to care. Sometimes good will is worth more in money in the long run than money gained from lawyers in the short term.

Imagine if google tried pulling the same crap, the people who care would be the fastest to bail just like apple products, but those that don't give a crap and willfully take it stay, different demographics different values. Some people don't care for freedom or choice.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Pieroxy · 2012-02-05 06:46 · Score: 1

be a dick to LG and steal their shit ...

... has no legal meaning. So yes, from a legal standpoint what Apple did is OK and what Samsung did is not.

That said, hold an iPhone 4 and a Samsung Galaxy S II apart and you will notice *A LOT* of similarities. Hold an iPhone 1st gen and a Prada, and there is almost nothing to compare. So I guess the legal standpoint is not the only standpoint here.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Pieroxy · 2012-02-05 06:53 · Score: 1

It's hard to compare long term vs short term here. If anything, Apple's actions will deter further competitors to get their products to close to theirs. This might be seen as a positive long term action. It also make some people go away from the Apple platform, but they are probably the most tech-oriented people, the same group that provide the Jailbreak ecosystem. That might also be seen as a good thing from Apple's perspective.

I'm just throwing wild guesses here, to illustrate that before making any long term vs short term analysis, there are *a lot* of variables to consider.

As far as freedom and choice are concerned, if you think choosing the Apple platform is turning your back on any, then you have fiercely misunderstood what the free market is. ALL Apple customers are free to leave the Apple platform any time (unless they're getting stuffed by their carrier, but that's not an Apple thing). The fact that they don't is in not an indication that they don't care. Only a retard or an Apple hater will pull that of his ass. Pick yours.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by walshy007 · 2012-02-05 13:18 · Score: 1

There are many aspects of freedom, I agree you are welcome to vote with your wallet any time you like. But by choosing apple you are limiting your freedom to tinker and load arbitrary applications etc. Freedom is being restricted, but it might not necessarily be a freedom that some people want or need.

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by Pieroxy · 2012-02-05 18:39 · Score: 1

Funny, freedom for me is not to have to know how all the parts of my vehicle work in order to operate it. You should just accept that freedom is a relative term, especially when it comes to commodity goods.

I have an iPhone and I had the freedom to choose a platform with which I can't tinker. I did not restrict myself, nor my SO, by choosing Apple. I just gave myself some more free time. That's my choice, and it may not be yours. I am no less free than you are.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Motorola bans Apple from selling Ipads and Ipho by walshy007 · 2012-02-05 23:02 · Score: 1

Funny, freedom for me is not to have to know how all the parts of my vehicle work in order to operate it.

Lots of people get by using android without knowing how it works... but you have the freedom to learn how it works if you wish, which you do not with iOS

You should just accept that freedom is a relative term, especially when it comes to commodity goods.

To have freedom is to be unrestricted, there are many ways in which people welcome restrictions, but to say a restriction itself is freedom is a bit silly.

I am no less free than you are.

You are less free to tinker, you may not care for that particular freedom, and that is your choice, but it is a restriction of freedom that android does not have.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Loses German Court Bid To Ban Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, Nexus Phone

193 comments