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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday February 2, 2012 @10:33PM from the and-the-hits-keep-coming dept.

chrb writes "Apple has failed to get a patent ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1N and the Nexus phone in Germany. Presiding Judge Andreas Mueller stated, 'Samsung has shown that it is more likely than not that the patent will be revoked because of a technology that was already on the market before the intellectual property had been filed for protection.' The patent in question covered list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display. This news follows the recent Appeals court ruling that upheld the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban."

22 of 193 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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...
4. 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
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.
1. 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();
2. 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.
3. 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%
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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: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.
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: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: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!
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 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!