PDA

View Full Version : Samsung Lawyers Also Struggle to Tell iPad and Galaxy Tab Apart




MacRumors
Oct 14, 2011, 09:09 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/14/samsung-lawyers-also-struggle-to-tell-ipad-and-galaxy-tab-apart/)


Developments continue in the wide-ranging patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, with judges in both the United States and the Netherlands making statements in favor of Apple although questions still remain.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/samsung_logo.jpg


Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111014) that U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh yesterday ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices do infringe upon Apple's iPad patents, but noted that Apple must still show that its patents are valid in order for any action to be taken against Samsung. Koh repeatedly cited the distinct similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab, even challenging Samsung's lawyers to differentiate between the two products.Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.Meanwhile, Reuters also reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/apple-samsung-idUSL5E7LE20C20111014) that a Dutch judge has denied Samsung's request for an injunction barring sales of Apple's iOS devices utilizing 3G technology. Counterclaims by Apple were also denied, with each party ordered to pay the other's court costs.

According to NU.nl (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.nu.nl/gadgets/2640790/rechtszaak-verbod-iphone-en-ipad-gaat-niet.html&hl=en&langpair=auto|en), the judge indicated that the 3G patents cited by Samsung cover essential technologies that must be licensed under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, but the terms Samsung had reportedly proposed to Apple were seen as high enough that they were not compliant with FRAND requirements.

Article Link: Samsung Lawyers Also Struggle to Tell iPad and Galaxy Tab Apart (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/14/samsung-lawyers-also-struggle-to-tell-ipad-and-galaxy-tab-apart/)



dethmaShine
Oct 14, 2011, 09:15 AM
I wonder why!

:rolleyes:

MonkeySee....
Oct 14, 2011, 09:17 AM
To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and get paid.

thewitt
Oct 14, 2011, 09:22 AM
To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and paid.

The point here is that the average user cannot tell the difference, therefor copying is clearly evident - which is the point of the lawsuit to begin with....

*LTD*
Oct 14, 2011, 09:28 AM
The more Samsung's legal moves are reported, the more they seem like clowns with a legal team made up of dancing bears.

Correction as per the response to my post:

It all starts with management. The lawyers simply do their bidding, which is in general true of retained lawyers.

FNi
Oct 14, 2011, 09:31 AM
The point here is that the average user cannot tell the difference, therefor copying is clearly evident - which is the point of the lawsuit to begin with....
I'm not agreeing with either side (as I haven't read enough about the patents in question), but if someone was to pick up two similarly sized black HP/Compaq/Dell laptops or black Sony/Samsung/Toshiba TVs, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 10 feet.

Not sure why tablets should be the unique flower here, but I'd be happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge of the lawsuit(s).

Formul
Oct 14, 2011, 09:32 AM
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents

and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:

Macman45
Oct 14, 2011, 09:39 AM
And held above head height, I doubt most people would be able to distinguish between the two devices. Hardly a scientific or legally valid test.

I have placed both devices together, handled both, and the difference is more than evident. The Galaxy has a rather cheap plastic feel to it, and lacks the substantive quality feel of the iPad.

On a side note, a friend of mine bought one and popped over to show me his new purchase. We compared the two as objectively as possible and both came to the conclusion that the Tab was an attempt at copying the iPad. It doesn't really come close though, but from a legal standpoint I think Apple have a case here. We shall see as the lawyers get richer.

zin
Oct 14, 2011, 09:41 AM
The more Samsung's legal moves are reported, the more they seem like clowns with a legal team made up of dancing bears.

It's not really their legal team that is made of clowns. I've no doubt that it's made up of excellent lawyers. However, I suspect executive management has decided to force them to try and argue a case which has never had any chance of winning, all so that they can prove they didn't copy.

I'd hate to be a Samsung lawyer right now. They're literally working with nothing (apart from that other patent which they're sure Apple has violated, but that's another case).

I think Samsung could have avoided this by paying a fair share to Apple right from the start. They've clearly copied many aspects of the iPad. Instead, they chose the long and potentially more expensive route of legal battles.

ekdor
Oct 14, 2011, 09:57 AM
-

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 09:57 AM
And held above head height, I doubt most people would be able to distinguish between the two devices. Hardly a scientific or legally valid test.

I have placed both devices together, handled both, and the difference is more than evident. The Galaxy has a rather cheap plastic feel to it, and lacks the substantive quality feel of the iPad.

On a side note, a friend of mine bought one and popped over to show me his new purchase. We compared the two as objectively as possible and both came to the conclusion that the Tab was an attempt at copying the iPad. It doesn't really come close though, but from a legal standpoint I think Apple have a case here. We shall see as the lawyers get richer.

They have a different screen aspect ratio. They have a different look when you turn both on. The Tab doesn't have a button where the iPad does. You use the Tab in Landscape Mode while you use the iPad in Portrait. How can one not tell the difference?

Tell me how Samsung Copied Apple rather than "it has a screen on it with a black border" Because Samsung did it way before iPad came out.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

gnasher729
Oct 14, 2011, 10:00 AM
To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and get paid.

This case is about whether an ordinary consumer could be confused by similarities between an iPad and a Samsung tablet. A well-prepared Samsung lawyer should be able to keep them apart from two hundred yards away, blindfolded, or he isn't doing his job and should be fired on the spot.


I'm not agreeing with either side (as I haven't read enough about the patents in question), but if someone was to pick up two similarly sized black HP/Compaq/Dell laptops or black Sony/Samsung/Toshiba TVs, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 10 feet.

Owning a Samsung TV, I can say that it looks definitely different from a Sony TV (haven't ever looked at Toshiba closely). Different enough that a Samsung lawyer should recognise it from quite a distance.


And held above head height, I doubt most people would be able to distinguish between the two devices.
Exactly Apple's point.

Hardly a scientific or legally valid test.

It's not whether you can distinguish between them. If a friend visits you with an iPad shortly before your birthday, and you tell your mother that you would like an iPad just like that for your birthday, what are the chances that she would buy the wrong one for you? Or if your mother watched you using your iPad and tried it, and she goes to a store to buy one for herself? If she goes to a Sony store, and the Sony salespeople convince her that the Sony tablet, which looks very much different to her, will serve her just as well or better than an iPad, and she buys it, that's proper competition. But if she buys a Samsung tablet _thinking_ that she is getting an iPad, that is a rip-off.

milo
Oct 14, 2011, 10:01 AM
Besides the devices themselves, don't forget that Samsung copied other things as well like the packaging, the look of apps and app icons, even things like the charging plug. There are pictures online showing the similarities, and it's obvious that it's intentional copying.

Macman45
Oct 14, 2011, 10:02 AM
They have a different screen aspect ratio. They have a different look when you turn both on. The Tab doesn't have a button where the iPad does. You use the Tab in Landscape Mode while you use the iPad in Portrait. How can one not tell the difference?

Tell me how Samsung Copied Apple rather than "it has a screen on it with a black border" Because Samsung did it way before iPad came out.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Is conceptual rather than physical as I understand it. Patent law is so damn complex and I wasnt taking sides in my post above, just making an observation. Perhaps Apple are too litigious but they have the right to defend themselves in court if they wish.

mkrishnan
Oct 14, 2011, 10:06 AM
Is conceptual rather than physical as I understand it. Patent law is so damn complex and I wasnt taking sides in my post above, just making an observation. Perhaps Apple are too litigious but they have the right to defend themselves in court if they wish.

I think you raise a good point, though. If you remove the brand logo, can you tell a box of Kleenex apart from the Walmart brand tissue paper? Can you tell a Firestone tire apart from a Yokohama tire without the logo on it? Can you tell a Dell mouse apart from an HP mouse?

You've got a screen and a back casing. Not that this is the conclusion they are suggesting, but it's an absurdity to argue that a device whose physical appearance is that simple needs to have some physically distinguishing feature to be different. Certainly, although there are many similarities, no one has trouble telling Android apart from iOS on visuals, and it would be pretty easy to tell which is which when they're on and unlocked.

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 10:07 AM
Besides the devices themselves, don't forget that Samsung copied other things as well like the packaging, the look of apps and app icons, even things like the charging plug. There are pictures online showing the similarities, and it's obvious that it's intentional copying.

Samsung didn't copy the packaging. Nintendo DS had the same packaging that Apple is using. http://videogames.techfresh.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/nintendo-ds-japanese-box.jpg

As for your Samsung copying the charging plug, virtually all accessory hardware is made by just a few manufacturers, then repackaged and rebranded for different companies. So internally, those two charger are very likely the exact same hardware, probably made at the same facility. The boxing and branding is added after the fact by whoever buys the hardware.

This case is about whether an ordinary consumer could be confused by similarities between an iPad and a Samsung tablet. A well-prepared Samsung lawyer should be able to keep them apart from two hundred yards away, blindfolded, or he isn't doing his job and should be fired on the spot.
You're making it seem like the lawyers should have magic powers that allows them to tell the difference even when blindfolded..

ouimetnick
Oct 14, 2011, 10:07 AM
Still don't understand why Samsung copied Apple in every regard. From the cable to the charger, to the box, to the device. Copied, Copied, Copied.

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 10:11 AM
Is conceptual rather than physical as I understand it. Patent law is so damn complex and I wasnt taking sides in my post above, just making an observation. Perhaps Apple are too litigious but they have the right to defend themselves in court if they wish.

The design of the iPad is basically(On the outside), a touch screen with a bezel around it. And that's pretty much what a tablet is. There's no other way to design it. Apple should just stop suing. :|

*LTD*
Oct 14, 2011, 10:28 AM
It's not really their legal team that is made of clowns. I've no doubt that it's made up of excellent lawyers. However, I suspect executive management has decided to force them to try and argue a case which has never had any chance of winning, all so that they can prove they didn't copy.

You're quite right, actually. It all starts with management.

----------

Still don't understand why Samsung copied Apple in every regard. From the cable to the charger, to the box, to the device. Copied, Copied, Copied.

What can you really expect from a company like this?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13394128&postcount=26

BC2009
Oct 14, 2011, 10:48 AM
To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and get paid.

To be fair, that is exactly the kind of person that must be used in this sort of test. If anything the Samsung lawyers should be very familiar with the differences since they are arguing this case on Samsung's behalf -- the average person would be even less aware. The point Apple is trying to make is that only a tech-geek knows the difference and that is not sufficient. I think the average person would require a bit a scrutiny to tell the tablets apart.

To be fair again, if this were a case between Sony and Vizio over a television I'd bet the average person could not tell which was the Sony and which was the Vizio. However, I don't think there are any design patents on those televisions.

The much more interesting ruling is out of the Netherlands with regards to the 3G technologies patents. The fact that a judge has now ruled that those patents should be subject to FRAND licensing terms AND has said that Samsung's proposed terms are not in compliance with FRAND licensing is a huge win for Apple.

Wondercow
Oct 14, 2011, 10:59 AM
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents

and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum

johncarync
Oct 14, 2011, 11:10 AM
If anyone wants to know the score, it's Apple-1; Samsung-0; Lawyers-8.

Zepaw
Oct 14, 2011, 11:36 AM
My aunt bought a samsung tab and genuinely thought it was an iPad. She was swindled though. The Verizon store insisted she was buying an iPad along with her phone. Obviously the biggest problem there was with the employee she encountered but she could not tell the difference herself and just believed him.

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 11:42 AM
To be fair, that is exactly the kind of person that must be used in this sort of test. If anything the Samsung lawyers should be very familiar with the differences since they are arguing this case on Samsung's behalf -- the average person would be even less aware. The point Apple is trying to make is that only a tech-geek knows the difference and that is not sufficient. I think the average person would require a bit a scrutiny to tell the tablets apart.

To be fair again, if this were a case between Sony and Vizio over a television I'd bet the average person could not tell which was the Sony and which was the Vizio. However, I don't think there are any design patents on those televisions.

The much more interesting ruling is out of the Netherlands with regards to the 3G technologies patents. The fact that a judge has now ruled that those patents should be subject to FRAND licensing terms AND has said that Samsung's proposed terms are not in compliance with FRAND licensing is a huge win for Apple.

iPad has a button Tab doesn't. The average person would first look at both devices first before buying the device.(And it's usually on) iOS is way different than Honeycomb. I have no idea how an average person wouldn't tell the difference unless they think the iPad is the only tablet in the market......

To be fair an average person compares TV's in stores as well with the TV's being labeled.

The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

valkraider
Oct 14, 2011, 12:02 PM
No matter what we think about this particular comparison, Samsung has screwed themselves.

Not only is Samsung starting to lose (or at best "tie") these battles in courts all over the globe - but they have pissed off Apple.

Samsung makes memory and processing chips. Apple was Samsung's largest customer. Apple has already started shifting to other vendors, and ultimately Samsung is going to lose significantly more than they stood to gain by suing Apple.

Samsung cut off their nose with no consideration for their face...

----------



To be fair an average person compares TV's in stores as well with the TV's being labeled.

The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

My brand new LG TV and my year old LG TV both have nicely visible "LG" logos on the front. Even though there are only so many ways you can style a TV and they all kind of look alike, LG made a bezel that was styled in a particular way to call out the TV as an LG.

Samsung could have done so with their bezel. They could slap a nice prominent Samsung logo and maybe change the color fade or style just enough. But they didn't. They released the tablet looking *exactly* like an iPad.

Sony, Microsoft, Motorola, Amazon - they would all sue anyone who did the same to them. In fact, if you made a tablet and a company made one that looked exactly like yours - you would sue them too.

Apple is not the bad guy here, no kool-aid needed.

Samsung could have altered one of a hundred design considerations and prevented this whole mess. They didn't.

gnasher729
Oct 14, 2011, 12:07 PM
The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

If you had an iPad, Samsung tablet, Toshiba tablet, and Sony tablet, you would very easily tell the Toshiba and Sony tablet apart, even from a larger distance. The iPad and Samsung, you wouldn't. Which is exactly the point that Apple makes. And the confusion is not about people holding them side by side and not seeing which is which, but people who see a Samsung tablet on its own and think it is an iPad.


No matter what we think about this particular comparison, Samsung has screwed themselves.

Not only is Samsung starting to lose (or at best "tie") these battles in courts all over the globe - but they have pissed off Apple.

Samsung makes memory and processing chips. Apple was Samsung's largest customer. Apple has already started shifting to other vendors, and ultimately Samsung is going to lose significantly more than they stood to gain by suing Apple.

Samsung cut off their nose with no consideration for their face...

I'd love to see what is going on inside Samsung. "Well, my dear VP of ARM processors, can you explain what kind of incompetence of yours caused you to sell 80 million chips less than last year?" "No incompetence at all, but the bloody idiots making the tablets upsetting my best customer who promptly left for TMSC, and who is threatening to stop buying our Flash memory and displays as well!"

marksman
Oct 14, 2011, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Is conceptual rather than physical as I understand it. Patent law is so damn complex and I wasnt taking sides in my post above, just making an observation. Perhaps Apple are too litigious but they have the right to defend themselves in court if they wish.

The design of the iPad is basically(On the outside), a touch screen with a bezel around it. And that's pretty much what a tablet is. There's no other way to design it. Apple should just stop suing. :|

With scores of tablets before the iPad none of which look like an iPad, you are 100% wrong.

Apple invented the look of the iPad and it was unique. Anyone claiming it is the only way to make a tablet are ignorant of reality.

Winni
Oct 14, 2011, 12:12 PM
Samsung Lawyers Also Struggle to Tell iPad and Galaxy Tab Apart

I usually have the same problem when I see new cars from Ford and Opel from a distance. And it's very difficult to not confuse Nutella with Nutoka from a meter distance. And let's not start with Kleenex, Tempo, Dash Ultra and no-name products for the same purposes. However, I do not see car and food companies going at each others throats because of some stupid design similarities.

And that notification system in iOS 5 still is an Android rip-off.

I wonder if Cupertino remains so sue-happy now that Steve has passed away. Litigation might buy some time, but on the long run, lawsuits like this one are not a smart thing to do.

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 12:14 PM
My brand new LG TV and my year old LG TV both have nicely visible "LG" logos on the front. Even though there are only so many ways you can style a TV and they all kind of look alike, LG made a bezel that was styled in a particular way to call out the TV as an LG.

Samsung could have done so with their bezel. They could slap a nice prominent Samsung logo and maybe change the color fade or style just enough. But they didn't. They released the tablet looking *exactly* like an iPad.

Sony, Microsoft, Motorola, Amazon - they would all sue anyone who did the same to them. In fact, if you made a tablet and a company made one that looked exactly like yours - you would sue them too.

Apple is not the bad guy here, no kool-aid needed.

Samsung could have altered one of a hundred design considerations and prevented this whole mess. They didn't.

Links of said TV bezel. And adding a logo in the front would make it worse. It would be better on the back. I agree with the color change though. But why should Apple's iPad only be black or white?

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't look exactly like the iPad 2. Only thing they have in common is the fact that they're both slim, they both have a touch screen with a bezel around it. I'd only sue if the appearance of the OS looked the same. But Apple is trying to ban them in Australia. Which to me, makes them the bad guy.

NorCalLights
Oct 14, 2011, 12:14 PM
[QUOTE=valkraider;13610286]
Samsung makes memory and processing chips. Apple was Samsung's largest customer. Apple has already started shifting to other vendors, and ultimately Samsung is going to lose significantly more than they stood to gain by suing Apple.

Samsung cut off their nose with no consideration for their face...[COLOR="#808080"]

I don't know if this is true. Samsung made the bet that it was better to be a mobile device manufacturer than a manufacturer of mobile device components.

It stands to reason that mobile device components will become increasingly commoditized and the profit margins will shrink. The short-term profits are all in components. The long-term profits are in devices.

However, if Samsung can't come out with a product that really gains some traction, they're going to lose both the short-term and the long-term.

marksman
Oct 14, 2011, 12:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

To be fair, that is exactly the kind of person that must be used in this sort of test. If anything the Samsung lawyers should be very familiar with the differences since they are arguing this case on Samsung's behalf -- the average person would be even less aware. The point Apple is trying to make is that only a tech-geek knows the difference and that is not sufficient. I think the average person would require a bit a scrutiny to tell the tablets apart.

To be fair again, if this were a case between Sony and Vizio over a television I'd bet the average person could not tell which was the Sony and which was the Vizio. However, I don't think there are any design patents on those televisions.

The much more interesting ruling is out of the Netherlands with regards to the 3G technologies patents. The fact that a judge has now ruled that those patents should be subject to FRAND licensing terms AND has said that Samsung's proposed terms are not in compliance with FRAND licensing is a huge win for Apple.

iPad has a button Tab doesn't. The average person would first look at both devices first before buying the device.(And it's usually on) iOS is way different than Honeycomb. I have no idea how an average person wouldn't tell the difference unless they think the iPad is the only tablet in the market......

To be fair an average person compares TV's in stores as well with the TV's being labeled.

The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

Yet they could have held up a number of other tablets and easily distinguished them again just proof Samsung is infringing.

Also people need to stop bringing up product examples in marketplaces and for items where unique design patents no longer exist. Yes a lot of black tooth combs look similar. It there is no existing patent in effect protecting their design. There is for the iPhone and iPad.

Winni
Oct 14, 2011, 12:17 PM
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents

and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:

Yes, because Apple has always been the most sue-happy company in the IT industry. They just do not play well with others and accordingly did not make themselves many friends. Apple's world is a walled garden with a closed ecosystem in which only Apple is of significance and they don't care for anybody else. "When Apple builds a platform, it's an accident." I think Steve Ballmer said that, but I'm not sure. In any case, it hits the nail on the head. And that's why they always get so much flak when they start yet another lawsuit.

tbrinkma
Oct 14, 2011, 12:20 PM
He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

Really?
From better than 10 feet away I can easily distinguish my MacBook Pro from the HP EliteBook I have for work, or any number of other laptops. (I can do so, open or closed, despite the fact that the back of both displays are silver metal.

I can distinguish between the Samsung monitor on my desk and the HP monitor an a co-worker's desk without difficulty from significantly further than 10 feet.

What is so special about a tablet that you think they all have to look nearly identical when viewed from the functional side?

Note: I can also distinguish the Sony tablet at the local Staples from the Samsung tablet on the same shelf as soon as I'm inside the doors (about 15 feet, before that the glare from the door glass prevents me from seeing much of anything that's more than 2 feet inside).

Prior to the iPad, there were scores of Windows Tablet PCs, all of which were easily distinguishable from one another at distances greater than 10 feet. (Not that 10 feet is a terribly long distance, it's only slightly longer than the dimension of a typical cubical.)

thenerdal
Oct 14, 2011, 12:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



With scores of tablets before the iPad none of which look like an iPad, you are 100% wrong.

Apple invented the look of the iPad and it was unique. Anyone claiming it is the only way to make a tablet are ignorant of reality.

Apple didn't invent the look of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung's picture frame from 2006. http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

If you had an iPad, Samsung tablet, Toshiba tablet, and Sony tablet, you would very easily tell the Toshiba and Sony tablet apart, even from a larger distance. The iPad and Samsung, you wouldn't. Which is exactly the point that Apple makes. And the confusion is not about people holding them side by side and not seeing which is which, but people who see a Samsung tablet on its own and think it is an iPad.


The Tab 10.1 and the iPad are simple and thin. While the Sony and Toshiba one are not. Just because Samsung made a simple and thin tablet doesn't mean they copied Apple.


Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



Yet they could have held up a number of other tablets and easily distinguished them again just proof Samsung is infringing.

Also people need to stop bringing up product examples in marketplaces and for items where unique design patents no longer exist. Yes a lot of black tooth combs look similar. It there is no existing patent in effect protecting their design. There is for the iPhone and iPad.

I agree with your first statement. But the only reason the Tab and iPad look the same from 10 feet away is because they're both have a simple and thin design.

Also, this patent suing thing started after Apple did it. Comb companies could do it too if they wanted to, but that'd be stupid.


Really?
From better than 10 feet away I can easily distinguish my MacBook Pro from the HP EliteBook I have for work, or any number of other laptops. (I can do so, open or closed, despite the fact that the back of both displays are silver metal.

I can distinguish between the Samsung monitor on my desk and the HP monitor an a co-worker's desk without difficulty from significantly further than 10 feet.

What is so special about a tablet that you think they all have to look nearly identical when viewed from the functional side?

Note: I can also distinguish the Sony tablet at the local Staples from the Samsung tablet on the same shelf as soon as I'm inside the doors (about 15 feet, before that the glare from the door glass prevents me from seeing much of anything that's more than 2 feet inside).

Prior to the iPad, there were scores of Windows Tablet PCs, all of which were easily distinguishable from one another at distances greater than 10 feet. (Not that 10 feet is a terribly long distance, it's only slightly longer than the dimension of a typical cubical.)

The keyboard on the HP elitebook is different than the MBP. There are other things as well. But it just depends which elitebook you have.

I'm talking about stuff that look similar but are not the same.

Tablet PC's are not the same as the iPad. An iPad is a Tablet computer. A tablet pc is different.

kurosov
Oct 14, 2011, 12:45 PM
The design of the iPad is basically(On the outside), a touch screen with a bezel around it. And that's pretty much what a tablet is. There's no other way to design it. Apple should just stop suing. :|


Yet other companies have indeed designed them in other ways.

scaredpoet
Oct 14, 2011, 01:07 PM
Yes, because Apple has always been the most sue-happy company in the IT industry

This statement would be true if you completely ignore (which you clearly have) all of the litigation that have been lodged against Apple. There's Kodak vs Apple (dismissed), Nokia vs Apple (settled), and HTC which bought bunch of Google patents specifically for the purpose of suing Apple with them. That's just to name a few.

All of the big players leverage their patent portfolios, and not just against Apple or Apple against others. Everyone pretty much sues everyone in this environment. Most of it occurs because of inertia: the way our broken patent system works, people can patent silly things and sue the pants off other people with it. If you do not build up your own portfolio of "Intellectual Property" with which to sue the pants off others with, you have no leverage, and lose money in litigation like a sieve. So Apple, just like every other company, has little choice but to play the game in order to either force a stalemate, or recoup some judgements of their own.


I have to say though. In Samsung's case it's pretty hard to defend what they do. Anyone who's tracked Samsung through the years knows that copying other people's products is their primary business model.

Remember when the Motorola RAZR was the phone all the cool kids had, and Sprint and Motorola didn't have that good of a relationship? Samsung came to rescue with a knockoff called the Blade (http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/samsung/mm-a900/page1.html). I owned both phones at the time. There was NO way you couldn't say the Blade wasn't a deliberate attempt at a copy. And of course when Sprint was finally the last US carrier to sell the RAZR, the Blade was suddenly not the flagship phone Sprint was touting.

And about a year before the iPhone first came out, Blackberries were the smartphones to have. Samsung saw this, and came out with a Windows-Mobile powered knock-off of that, too. Do you honestly think the name "Blackjack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607)" and its physical appearance were merely happy coincidences? RIM didn't think so, and sued them over it.

Samsung does make decent products. Not great, but decent. And certainly not original.

DaveGee
Oct 14, 2011, 01:13 PM
http://s1.postimage.org/9onyds7l0/cousin_vinny.jpg

eMace
Oct 14, 2011, 04:07 PM
Are you guys STILL talking about two rectangular tablets looking the same? And the packaging? Should we patent packaging now?

AFAIK, the only patent we know about being infringed on is some multitouch finger swipe thing. The motion was too similar or something. We haven't heard any patents about how tablets look.

And you guys can tell 2 different monitors apart from far away? Really? Maybe Samsung should have added a hood ornament on top of their Tab so it didn't look too similar to the iPad.

Penguissimo
Oct 14, 2011, 04:22 PM
Samsung could have done so with their bezel. They could slap a nice prominent Samsung logo and maybe change the color fade or style just enough. But they didn't. They released the tablet looking *exactly* like an iPad.


They did all of these things on the back of the tablet. The two tablets are quite easily distinguishable from the back. Are we now suggesting Apple's patents on black rectangles extends to also having a patent on a logoless bezel?

gnasher729
Oct 14, 2011, 07:03 PM
The Tab 10.1 and the iPad are simple and thin. While the Sony and Toshiba one are not. Just because Samsung made a simple and thin tablet doesn't mean they copied Apple.

Two possibilities: Samsung's designers copied the iPad design (either because they were too lazy, or more likely because they were told to do so by management), or Samsung's designers made a design that by coincidence looks like an iPad. That surely makes a difference from a moral point of view, but from the legal point of view it doesn't make a difference at all. The only thing that counts is whether it looks like Apple's design patent or not.


And you guys can tell 2 different monitors apart from far away? Really? Maybe Samsung should have added a hood ornament on top of their Tab so it didn't look too similar to the iPad.

A few hours ago I was in the office, with a good dozen monitors at five to ten meters distance. And I can tell you that the ones that are not identical models looked very much different. Even three different Dell monitors looking very much different from five meters distance.

Judas1
Oct 14, 2011, 08:04 PM
Of course it'll be hard to tell them apart. They're both black rectangles without any real distinguishing features. Its not a matter of one copying the other. Its that Apple doesn't have anything "unique" in the look of their ipad.

Surklyn
Oct 14, 2011, 09:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



With scores of tablets before the iPad none of which look like an iPad, you are 100% wrong.

Apple invented the look of the iPad and it was unique. Anyone claiming it is the only way to make a tablet are ignorant of reality.

Stop with the scores of Tablets before the iPad. There are NONE. They are ALL full-sized laptops with a STYLUS touch screen. HARDLY a 10" touch screen computer that has no keyboard, doesn't weigh 5lbs, nor requires a stylus, nor has a less than perfect OS for the job (being generous there)...

vitzr
Oct 14, 2011, 10:10 PM
Apple is in a very enviable position, as this is but the beginning. Wait until it's discovered that Samsungs engineers & admin staff sit on chairs behind desks, each desk with four legs, the same number of legs as Apple uses. The "Rule Of Four" will be Samsungs demise. Desks are but a starting point. I bet if we looked in Samsungs parking lot, we'll find cars with four wheels. Four tires. Four doors, four seats, oh my, the list is endless. Between banning Samsung products from being sold, to preventing their cars from being driven... well you get the idea. Suddenly an all Apple world doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Nothing to decide, what a relief. Just send our monthly payments to Apple for all our needs. Thrilling indeed :)

MrWillie
Oct 15, 2011, 12:09 AM
Apple didn't invent the look of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung's picture frame from 2006. http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/



The old picture frame post. Picture frame and tablet. Two different things. Also Samsung doesn't sell 10 million picture frames a quarter. It's all about trade dress or product association. Try opening a burger joint and put up gold arches.

Apple is in a very enviable position, as this is but the beginning. Wait until it's discovered that Samsungs engineers & admin staff sit on chairs behind desks, each desk with four legs, the same number of legs as Apple uses. The "Rule Of Four" will be Samsungs demise. Desks are but a starting point. I bet if we looked in Samsungs parking lot, we'll find cars with four wheels. Four tires. Four doors, four seats, oh my, the list is endless. Between banning Samsung products from being sold, to preventing their cars from being driven... well you get the idea. Suddenly an all Apple world doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Nothing to decide, what a relief. Just send our monthly payments to Apple for all our needs. Thrilling indeed :)

Which were all patented by Henry Ford (I posted links several months ago. Interesting read.) All of the patents have expired, now it's public knowledge. Again try opening a burger joint and put up gold arches. How long do you think you will be in business?

Judas1
Oct 15, 2011, 01:15 AM
For all of you that believe Samsung copied Apple, give me a few examples of unique or distinguishing features that the Galaxy copied from the Ipad design-wise.

Dr McKay
Oct 15, 2011, 08:00 AM
For all of you that believe Samsung copied Apple, give me a few examples of unique or distinguishing features that the Galaxy copied from the Ipad design-wise.

It's a rectangle made up of mostly screen. Apple owns this patent.

*LTD*
Oct 15, 2011, 09:06 AM
Apple is in a very enviable position, as this is but the beginning. Wait until it's discovered that Samsungs engineers & admin staff sit on chairs behind desks, each desk with four legs, the same number of legs as Apple uses. The "Rule Of Four" will be Samsungs demise. Desks are but a starting point. I bet if we looked in Samsungs parking lot, we'll find cars with four wheels. Four tires. Four doors, four seats, oh my, the list is endless. Between banning Samsung products from being sold, to preventing their cars from being driven... well you get the idea. Suddenly an all Apple world doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Nothing to decide, what a relief. Just send our monthly payments to Apple for all our needs. Thrilling indeed :)

You have the option to not buy into the Apple ecosystem. If you don't buy into it, then you're not using it. There would be nothing to complain about.

But somehow, people do buy into it, and then they turn around and come here to complain about it. But they keep buying into it, complaining each time (when they know full well what Apple's philosophy is about tech), with the firm expectation that someday, after enough money has been spent on Apple gear, Apple will miraculously change and be exactly the kind of company they envisioned (no matter how outlandish this expectation.)

Too funny.

fourthtunz
Oct 15, 2011, 09:37 AM
Help me here, didn't the iPad come first?
This isn't a tv, this is whole new product category.
If Samsungs own lawyers can't tell the difference I'd say Samsung has done a pretty good job of coping the look of the iPad.
If the icons and os look similar then aren't they in fact trying to copy?
We probably shouldn't get into the fact that apple was Samsungs biggest
Customer and now Samsung has come out with a copy cat product.

kdarling
Oct 15, 2011, 10:12 AM
The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. (S)he was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

Perhaps she is vain and nearsighted and needs glasses to see that far. Perhaps she doesn't really care about tablets. We don't know.

A lawyer behind her was able to tell the difference right away, probably from the different aspect ratio and by which one had a home button.

Holding them up sounds like a Judge Judy stunt that has little to do with potential buyer confusion:


In real life, nobody blindly buys any tablet from ten feet away.
In real life, buyers don't choose by a power plug or connector shape that's still inside the box.
In real life, a buyer can try out demo tablets and immediately see how different they are.
In real life, there are no stacks of boxes of iPads and Tabs for the taking, so it's unlikely a customer will be confused by packaging.
In real life, a buyer has to ask for the specific model they're buying... Apple or Samsung, WiFi or not, and perhaps amount of memory... and the salesperson brings it out from storage.


It's no different than all the TVs you see in stores now. They're all flat, black and come in similar boxes. You still buy by brand, screen quality, price... not by its packaging or cable look or even shape confusion.

fourthtunz
Oct 15, 2011, 10:20 AM
Perhaps she is vain and nearsighted and needs glasses to see that far. Perhaps she doesn't really care about tablets. We don't know.

A lawyer behind her was able to tell the difference right away, probably from the different aspect ratio and by which one had a home button.

Holding them up sounds like a Judge Judy stunt that has little to do with potential buyer confusion:


In real life, nobody blindly buys any tablet from ten feet away.
In real life, buyers don't choose by a power plug or connector shape that's still inside the box.
In real life, a buyer can try out demo tablets and immediately see how
different they are.
In real life, there are no stacks of boxes of iPads and Tabs for the taking, so it's unlikely a customer will be confused by packaging.
In real life, a buyer has to ask for the specific model they're buying... Apple or Samsung, WiFi or not, and perhaps amount of memory... and the salesperson brings it out from storage.



It's no different than all the TVs you see in stores now. They're all flat, black and come in similar boxes. You still buy by brand, screen quality, price... not by its packaging or cable look or even shape confusion.


The difference is that we are not talking about a tv or a comb!
If Sumsung has tried to copy the look of and feel of an iPad Sumsung has infringed on apple's patents.

markie
Oct 15, 2011, 01:55 PM
Have any of you ever used a Galaxy Tab 10.1? Or even seen it? It looks NOTHING like an iPad on the back. As for the front, there's only so many variations of "slab of touchable glass" a person can make. The aspect ratio is different, the edge is different, the back isn't remotely the same. Those other tablets look so different at a glance because they're MUCH thicker. Should Apple be allowed an exclusive on thin and light? No way. The software doesn't look remotely like iOS. And of course, I'm an iPad fan myself so I hate to say this - but the Samsung screen is several times higher quality and the difference in color saturation is visible from quite some distance if the device was on and showing a full color photo with bright colors.

kdarling
Oct 15, 2011, 04:09 PM
The difference is that we are not talking about a tv or a comb! If Sumsung has tried to copy the look of and feel of an iPad Sumsung has infringed on apple's patents.

Copying look and feel is not enough (and Samsung didn't directly copy any design patent or trademark). The look and feel has to be associated with Apple to the point that a buyer really thinks they're buying an Apple authorized product.

In my previous posts I gave two examples of trade dress cases that failed even though they were far more of a copy than anything Samsung did.

1) Prestone Antifreeze - a small shop started selling antifreeze in a yellow jug of the same style. Prestone sued, and lost because they never emphasized their jug or its color in their ads. Now think about it, does Apple say to buy their iPad because it's flat and rounded rectangular? Nope, they say to buy it for the apps. (Same thing went for "Multi-touch", which is why Apple didn't get the trademark.)

2) Excedrin PM vs Tylenol PM - same 'PM' suffix, same shading on packages. Seems open and shut, doesn't it? The case was dismissed because the court held that the brand names "Excedrin" and "Tylenol" were well known enough to clue in a pill buyer. Now think Apple and Samsung.

louiek
Oct 15, 2011, 06:17 PM
The much more interesting ruling is out of the Netherlands with regards to the 3G technologies patents. The fact that a judge has now ruled that those patents should be subject to FRAND licensing terms AND has said that Samsung's proposed terms are not in compliance with FRAND licensing is a huge win for Apple.

Was this the case that the Samsung exec said they'd bring out once the new iPhone was released, proving all idevices were and always had been infringing their patents. There was a lot of tough talk coming out of Samsung over that one.

irobot2003
Oct 15, 2011, 06:18 PM
Apple didn't invent the look of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung's picture frame from 2006.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

The Tab 10.1 and the iPad are simple and thin. While the Sony and Toshiba one are not. Just because Samsung made a simple and thin tablet doesn't mean they copied Apple. [...]


The linked page has a misleading view of the Samsung picture frame from 2006. It's actually about 3" thick. Better views are shown here:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jpg
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21776_Samsung_Picture_Frame.png

thenerdal
Oct 15, 2011, 06:21 PM
The linked page has a misleading view of the Samsung picture frame from 2006. It's actually about 3" thick. Better views are shown here:

Image (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jpg)
Image (http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21776_Samsung_Picture_Frame.png)

That's not the point. The point is iPad should not be the only tablet that has a black bezel around it.

*LTD*
Oct 16, 2011, 10:59 AM
Seems Apple has made their position very clear.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/apple-told-samsung-it-owns-thicket-of.html

Apple to Samsung: We own a "thicket of patents" and will license only "lower level patents"

“On Friday, the decision of the Federal Court of Australia to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was published, with a very few passages redacted out. It’s a long document,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “I pasted the content of that HTML page into a word processor, and it filled 65 pages. But it’s definitely one of the most interesting court orders I have read in connection with mobile devices.”

“I have always assumed — based on what Steve Jobs said last year when Apple sued HTC and on Apple’s litigation tactics — that Apple didn’t start all of this Android-related litigation just to walk away with a $5-per-unit kind of license deal,” Mueller reports. “Apple optimizes for product differentiation. Apple isn’t Microsoft, which concluded a license deal with Samsung as well as eight other Android device makers. Those two companies have different business models in general and with respect to patents in particular.”

Mueller reports, “A few months ago I wrote in another post (on the BRIC countries possibly becoming a safe haven for Android) that ‘a deal under which Apple would let Android off the hook’ would come with conditions including that ‘some patents would probably still be kept exclusively.’ And thanks to the Australian court ruling, I can now say with certainty that this is what Apple communicated to Samsung.”

cube
Oct 16, 2011, 11:03 AM
Can you identify the average TV if you don't see the brand on the front?

TheMacBookPro
Oct 16, 2011, 01:05 PM
My aunt bought a samsung tab and genuinely thought it was an iPad. She was swindled though. The Verizon store insisted she was buying an iPad along with her phone. Obviously the biggest problem there was with the employee she encountered but she could not tell the difference herself and just believed him.

So your aunt didn't notice the Samsung logo on the front and rear of the tablet, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab logos splattered all over the box?

http://technmarketing.com/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/galaxy-tab-hand.jpg

http://compixels.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Galaxy-Tab-Box-Open.jpg

I'm not doubting you, but hey, your aunt must have pretty bad eyesight.

BC2009
Oct 16, 2011, 10:50 PM
Was this the case that the Samsung exec said they'd bring out once the new iPhone was released, proving all idevices were and always had been infringing their patents. There was a lot of tough talk coming out of Samsung over that one.

Yup - these were the patents behind all that tough talk. FRAND patents are essential patents to a technological area (unlike Apple's design patents) and therefore FRAND patents must be licensed at reasonable terms in order to prevent monopolistic behavior. So you can make money off of FRAND patents (and lots of it because everyone becomes a licensee) but you can't get injunctions and block competitors. If other countries follow rule similarly to the Netherlands then Samsung may find themselves low on patent ammunition.

Truth be told, Apple tried to play nice with Samsung and politely asked them to change the physical designs of their phones and tablets. Not a big favor to ask considering Samsung was making serious cash off every iPhone and iPad sold. But Samsung apparently did not like that Apple had siphoned so many mobile phone customers away since 2007 and wanted to attack Apple head-on. This is playing out in the worst possible way for Samsung so far. They are fairing poorly in the courts and they are losing Apple's business on the supply side.

Like I've said before, there are some sales account managers at Samsung who are none to pleased with the folks who pushed the Galaxy line forward. Their commissions are diminishing with every passing day.

brian1234
Oct 17, 2011, 02:37 AM
Apple Inc claims that the Samsung company has followed the designs and working procedures of the apple Ipad.But Samsung is claiming that it has manufactured from it's patents.So There is controversial issue is arising in between the to companies.

gnasher729
Oct 17, 2011, 06:54 AM
Copying look and feel is not enough (and Samsung didn't directly copy any design patent or trademark). The look and feel has to be associated with Apple to the point that a buyer really thinks they're buying an Apple authorized product.

In my previous posts I gave two examples of trade dress cases that failed even though they were far more of a copy than anything Samsung did.

1) Prestone Antifreeze - a small shop started selling antifreeze in a yellow jug of the same style. Prestone sued, and lost because they never emphasized their jug or its color in their ads. Now think about it, does Apple say to buy their iPad because it's flat and rounded rectangular? Nope, they say to buy it for the apps. (Same thing went for "Multi-touch", which is why Apple didn't get the trademark.)

2) Excedrin PM vs Tylenol PM - same 'PM' suffix, same shading on packages. Seems open and shut, doesn't it? The case was dismissed because the court held that the brand names "Excedrin" and "Tylenol" were well known enough to clue in a pill buyer. Now think Apple and Samsung.

1. How does this work with products like cheap fake handbags or cheap "Rolox" watches and the like, where the buyer knows exactly that they are getting a fake, but they buy it because it looks similar to the original, that is because they want others to think it might be an original? (With watches, I am told there are now plenty of watches that are actually made with the intent to defraud).

2. In Excedrin vs. Tylenol for example the case is _only_ about confusion and people buying the wrong product by mistake. Nobody buys Excedrin PM because they like the packaging so much; the packaging is just a hint of what product is sold. But in an iPad, the packaging and the product design are actually important parts of the product. People might look at a Samsung tablet, and a Sony tablet, and they might decide that both are exactly of the same value, price and quality, but buy the Samsung tablet because they want something that looks like an iPad.

Phil A.
Oct 17, 2011, 07:10 AM
And held above head height, I doubt most people would be able to distinguish between the two devices. Hardly a scientific or legally valid test.


It does seem that Samsung have deliberately set out to copy the look and feel of the iPad though (and the iPhone with their Touchwiz interface).

I have an Asus transformer as well as an iPad and Asus have made their tablet look completely different to the iPad (as have Sony and other companies), and have added features over and above what the iPad has (such as the dockable keyboard and touch pad), which is why I got it as an additional device.

Even ignoring any ethical arguments, I wouldn't get a Samsung Galaxy because to me it's "Like an iPad, but not an iPad" - why would I choose it over the iPad?

Judas1
Oct 17, 2011, 10:14 AM
Yup - these were the patents behind all that tough talk. FRAND patents are essential patents to a technological area (unlike Apple's design patents) and therefore FRAND patents must be licensed at reasonable terms in order to prevent monopolistic behavior. So you can make money off of FRAND patents (and lots of it because everyone becomes a licensee) but you can't get injunctions and block competitors. If other countries follow rule similarly to the Netherlands then Samsung may find themselves low on patent ammunition.

Truth be told, Apple tried to play nice with Samsung and politely asked them to change the physical designs of their phones and tablets. Not a big favor to ask considering Samsung was making serious cash off every iPhone and iPad sold. But Samsung apparently did not like that Apple had siphoned so many mobile phone customers away since 2007 and wanted to attack Apple head-on. This is playing out in the worst possible way for Samsung so far. They are fairing poorly in the courts and they are losing Apple's business on the supply side.

Like I've said before, there are some sales account managers at Samsung who are none to pleased with the folks who pushed the Galaxy line forward. Their commissions are diminishing with every passing day.
Are people just tired this morning or something? Its not a big thing for a company to completely redesign their products after it already went into production?
What are you talking about with Samsung making serious cash on the iphone and ipad? They supplied parts to Apple only, and probably at a low price for Apple to take the deal. They're not exactly overflowing with cash from the deal. Its Apple thats making several hundred dollars per devices.

It does seem that Samsung have deliberately set out to copy the look and feel of the iPad though (and the iPhone with their Touchwiz interface).

I have an Asus transformer as well as an iPad and Asus have made their tablet look completely different to the iPad (as have Sony and other companies), and have added features over and above what the iPad has (such as the dockable keyboard and touch pad), which is why I got it as an additional device.

Even ignoring any ethical arguments, I wouldn't get a Samsung Galaxy because to me it's "Like an iPad, but not an iPad" - why would I choose it over the iPad?
No it does not. The look is generic and not specific to the Ipad. The feel is totally different. Functionality is different too. I'm tired of seeing the argument, this company's design is different from the ipad, so that company should be different too or else its copying the ipad. The transformer is different(unique) and if another company came up with something similar, it'll be copying. The ipad is a black rectangle, very generic, so even blind designers will be able to come up with something similar. Concluding it as a case of copying is stupid.

So you are basically saying that about 50% of the population can be confused by Samsung's copying of the iPad design, and could by mistake buy something they didn't want. Plus everyone with bad eyesight. Plus a lot of males who are clueless about electronics. That adds up.

----------



1. How does this work with products like cheap fake handbags or cheap "Rolox" watches and the like, where the buyer knows exactly that they are getting a fake, but they buy it because it looks similar to the original, that is because they want others to think it might be an original? (With watches, I am told there are now plenty of watches that are actually made with the intent to defraud).

2. In Excedrin vs. Tylenol for example the case is _only_ about confusion and people buying the wrong product by mistake. Nobody buys Excedrin PM because they like the packaging so much; the packaging is just a hint of what product is sold. But in an iPad, the packaging and the product design are actually important parts of the product. People might look at a Samsung tablet, and a Sony tablet, and they might decide that both are exactly of the same value, price and quality, but buy the Samsung tablet because they want something that looks like an iPad.

They might buy Samsung because it looks better. What does that have to do with the Ipad?
Take a look at the picture several comments ago that shows a Samsung tablet from 2006 with the front looking nearly identical to the Galaxy tab now. Of course it was from 2006 and very thick, but companies are always striving to make gadgets smaller, thinner, and lighter with the progression of technology. Fast forward to now, and you have the Galaxy tab. Eazy pezy.
A clear case of Samsung design progression, no copying seen anywhere. If anything Apple copied the front from Samsung.
The court case is so dumb. When the Judge showed off the two side by side, for comparison, I'm assuming she showed the front of the devices, which happens to be just black rectangles. And clearly, Samsung came up with the black rectangle in 2006, before apple did.

gnasher729
Oct 17, 2011, 12:13 PM
They might buy Samsung because it looks better. What does that have to do with the Ipad?
Take a look at the picture several comments ago that shows a Samsung tablet from 2006 with the front looking nearly identical to the Galaxy tab now. Of course it was from 2006 and very thick, but companies are always striving to make gadgets smaller, thinner, and lighter with the progression of technology. Fast forward to now, and you have the Galaxy tab. Eazy pezy.
A clear case of Samsung design progression, no copying seen anywhere. If anything Apple copied the front from Samsung.
The court case is so dumb. When the Judge showed off the two side by side, for comparison, I'm assuming she showed the front of the devices, which happens to be just black rectangles. And clearly, Samsung came up with the black rectangle in 2006, before apple did.

You go on and post yourself happy on MacRumors; meanwhile Apple wins in the courts :D

FYI: Samsung did _not_ have any tablet in the year 2006. They had a photo frame. A photo frame is not a tablet, and I'm sure Apple doesn't mind if Samsung continues selling their photo frames.

BC2009
Oct 17, 2011, 12:22 PM
Are people just tired this morning or something? Its not a big thing for a company to completely redesign their products after it already went into production?
What are you talking about with Samsung making serious cash on the iphone and ipad? They supplied parts to Apple only, and probably at a low price for Apple to take the deal. They're not exactly overflowing with cash from the deal. Its Apple thats making several hundred dollars per devices.


Obviously Samsung had no problem redesigning the Galaxy Tab in the three months after the iPad 2 announcement to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad 2 -- so they obviously don't have a problem with redesigning if they are making it look more like Apple products.

Regarding the amount of cash that Samsung was making off Apple, the figure I saw reported was $8 BILLION dollars per year. That would be a good customer for pretty much any company.

So I stand by what I said.

Dagless
Oct 17, 2011, 02:57 PM
Isn't the iPad a (visual) copy of that Scratchbook device, or whatever it was called?

Gasu E.
Oct 17, 2011, 03:56 PM
A well-prepared Samsung lawyer should be able to keep them apart from two hundred yards away, blindfolded, or he isn't doing his job and should be fired on the spot.


I love it when people use expressions like that! :rolleyes:

thenerdal
Oct 17, 2011, 04:13 PM
You go on and post yourself happy on MacRumors; meanwhile Apple wins in the courts :D

FYI: Samsung did _not_ have any tablet in the year 2006. They had a photo frame. A photo frame is not a tablet, and I'm sure Apple doesn't mind if Samsung continues selling their photo frames.

The iPad is a “tablet”, while this is a “photo frame”, but it can store photos, music and movies, as well, so the similarities don’t end at just looking the same.
Legally, it might not even matter if they are in different markets. I remember when Apple had to settle with Cisco for the name “iPhone”, even though Cisco was using the name for a completely different market than smartphones. So how can Apple put an injunction on the Galaxy Tab because it looks similar to the iPad, if both look like this product made by Samsung, no other, in 2006? Does Apple really own the “look and feel” of tablets then, or does Samsung?

Being “similar” is what defines an entire product category. Without some kind of similarity, we wouldn’t have “tablets” we’d have just “tablet. We wouldn’t have “fridges”. We’d just have “fridge”, and so on. Entire markets would be defined by just one unique product alone. That means there wouldn’t be any “direct” competition. One company would have the monopoly over that product category in every market. Prices would be higher, and the progress for that type of product would be a lot slower, since there would be nobody offering a similar product. If everyone enforced their patents on all their competitors, and “justice” regarding this would be made swiftly, that’s exactly the type of world we would live in. And all because the patent system is so broken, and doesn’t account for how things work in the real business world.

Fortunately, for the most part, the business world doesn’t work like that. Competitors copy each other’s features all the time and they don’t even bother suing each other (even though they could, as long as they own the patents). This ends up making the progress of their products a lot faster. They *need* to stay always one step or two ahead of each other in different features, so people can still prefer them over the others. But they all copy the basic features and concepts from each other, and then they just compete on “new” innovations and differentiating factors. The prices also drop because everyone overs pretty similar products, and the quality keeps getting up. Consumers win.

But in some markets (tablet market) some competitors (Apple) will actually try to enforce their patents to block their competitors from even competing with them. The only reason that fantasy patent world I mentioned earlier doesn’t really exist is because the patents are not enforced as much as they could be by companies. But Apple seems to be trying their best to make that patent fantasy world become real, and if they succeed, all customers will be at a loss for lack of choices for “similar” products. And that includes Apple customers, because everyone loses when there’s less competition for a type of product.

BC2009
Oct 17, 2011, 04:48 PM
The iPad is a “tablet”, while this is a “photo frame”, but it can store photos, music and movies, as well, so the similarities don’t end at just looking the same.
Legally, it might not even matter if they are in different markets. I remember when Apple had to settle with Cisco for the name “iPhone”, even though Cisco was using the name for a completely different market than smartphones. So how can Apple put an injunction on the Galaxy Tab because it looks similar to the iPad, if both look like this product made by Samsung, no other, in 2006? Does Apple really own the “look and feel” of tablets then, or does Samsung?
....


Have you seen the side view of that 3-inch thick photo frame? Looks nothing like a tablet. The photo frame is a bad thing to latch on to in this debate.

I more interesting thing to look at would be the JooJoo which was announced before the iPad and was also made to look like a large iPhone. I don't quite know why the JooJoo does not come up more in these legal proceedings.

My personal beef with Samsung is that most companies don't try to compete against an $8B per year customer. Doing so is usually deemed ludicrous. However, Samsung seemed to think they could do it and win without first trying to invalidate Apple's design patents. This whole thing has been very poorly played by Samsung, but what do I know? It's not like I am running a multi-billion dollar corporation. I get to be an "armchair CEO" and simply critique them on this forum. :)

thenerdal
Oct 17, 2011, 05:03 PM
Have you seen the side view of that 3-inch thick photo frame? Looks nothing like a tablet. The photo frame is a bad thing to latch on to in this debate.

I more interesting thing to look at would be the JooJoo which was announced before the iPad and was also made to look like a large iPhone. I don't quite know why the JooJoo does not come up more in these legal proceedings.

My personal beef with Samsung is that most companies don't try to compete against an $8B per year customer. Doing so is usually deemed ludicrous. However, Samsung seemed to think they could do it and win without first trying to invalidate Apple's design patents. This whole thing has been very poorly played by Samsung, but what do I know? It's not like I am running a multi-billion dollar corporation. I get to be an "armchair CEO" and simply critique them on this forum. :)

It doesn't look like a tablet from the side, but it does look like the iPad from the front. Using your logic, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks completely different because their backs don't look the same....

rhett7660
Oct 17, 2011, 05:39 PM
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents

and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:

Imagine that.... Apple is bulling everyone these days. Heck some are mentioning Apple going after people who sit on four legged chairs.

TheMacBookPro
Oct 17, 2011, 06:09 PM
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents

and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:

I see it the other way-

1. Apple is bullying Samsung with their dumb 'four corners and a black front' patent
2. Samsung is (rightfully) suing Apple for infringing on their 3G patent

And yet it's Samsung who's getting all the blame here.

thenerdal
Oct 17, 2011, 06:11 PM
I see it the other way-

1. Apple is bullying Samsung with their dumb 'four corners and a black front' patent
2. Samsung is (rightfully) suing Apple for infringing on their 3G patent

And yet it's Samsung who's getting all the blame here.

I agree. Apple is the one who started all this.

*LTD*
Oct 18, 2011, 09:22 AM
I agree. Apple is the one who started all this.

Well obviously. And rightfully so, it would appear.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/18/samsung_accused_of_lifting_iphone_screenshot_for_galaxy_player_promo.html

kdarling
Oct 18, 2011, 10:48 AM
Well obviously. And rightfully so, it would appear.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/18/samsung_accused_of_lifting_iphone_screenshot_for_galaxy_player_promo.html

The only thing that's obvious, is that it had nothing to do with Apple's lawsuits. If anything, it simply points out that it can be more difficult for lazy graphics artists to find screen captures from Android devices.

Even the article you quoted says it was a mistake:

"... a failure to replace a placeholder image is believed to be the cause." - Apple Insider

Debating look-and-feel is fine, and appropriate in this case, but should consist of discussions of the actual issues instead of time wasting nonsense... even if the latter is so much easier because it requires no research or thinking.

MonkeySee....
Oct 18, 2011, 11:25 AM
Well obviously. And rightfully so, it would appear.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/18/samsung_accused_of_lifting_iphone_screenshot_for_galaxy_player_promo.html

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this.

Poor form Samsung, poor form.

thenerdal
Oct 18, 2011, 02:27 PM
Well obviously. And rightfully so, it would appear.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/18/samsung_accused_of_lifting_iphone_screenshot_for_galaxy_player_promo.html

A lot of companies do that. But that's not what they're being sued for. And if I recall, Apple edited a picture of Galaxy Tab to make it seem like they both look the same.

eMace
Oct 18, 2011, 03:09 PM
Apple is in a very enviable position, as this is but the beginning. Wait until it's discovered that Samsungs engineers & admin staff sit on chairs behind desks, each desk with four legs, the same number of legs as Apple uses. The "Rule Of Four" will be Samsungs demise. Desks are but a starting point. I bet if we looked in Samsungs parking lot, we'll find cars with four wheels. Four tires. Four doors, four seats, oh my, the list is endless. Between banning Samsung products from being sold, to preventing their cars from being driven... well you get the idea. Suddenly an all Apple world doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Nothing to decide, what a relief. Just send our monthly payments to Apple for all our needs. Thrilling indeed :)

LOL!

Perhaps she is vain and nearsighted and needs glasses to see that far. Perhaps she doesn't really care about tablets. We don't know.

A lawyer behind her was able to tell the difference right away, probably from the different aspect ratio and by which one had a home button.

Holding them up sounds like a Judge Judy stunt that has little to do with potential buyer confusion:


In real life, nobody blindly buys any tablet from ten feet away.
In real life, buyers don't choose by a power plug or connector shape that's still inside the box.
In real life, a buyer can try out demo tablets and immediately see how different they are.
In real life, there are no stacks of boxes of iPads and Tabs for the taking, so it's unlikely a customer will be confused by packaging.
In real life, a buyer has to ask for the specific model they're buying... Apple or Samsung, WiFi or not, and perhaps amount of memory... and the salesperson brings it out from storage.


It's no different than all the TVs you see in stores now. They're all flat, black and come in similar boxes. You still buy by brand, screen quality, price... not by its packaging or cable look or even shape confusion.

Would vote up twice if I could.

1. How does this work with products like cheap fake handbags or cheap "Rolox" watches and the like, where the buyer knows exactly that they are getting a fake, but they buy it because it looks similar to the original, that is because they want others to think it might be an original? (With watches, I am told there are now plenty of watches that are actually made with the intent to defraud).

Are you seriously trying to compare this to the ipad case? So you think people are going to buy the Tab, hide the Samsung logo, and tape a Apple logo on the back? I've been using Apple products since the 80's but the fanboyism in here is getting absolutely ridiculous.


My personal beef with Samsung is that most companies don't try to compete against an $8B per year customer.

Newsflash! Tablets were invented BEFORE the iPad! Samsung's probably been trying to make tablet-like devices long before the iPad came out. Why shouldn't they be able to get into the tablet market?

platicar
Oct 19, 2011, 01:45 AM
Tell me with a straight face that this doesn't look like safari and the keyboard from iOS.

http://www.newsden.net/samsung-galaxy-tablet-spotted-running-on-android-2-2-2790/

There's such little originality here on Samsung's part. They use identical shift and delete icons even...

kdarling
Oct 19, 2011, 07:25 AM
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this.
Poor form Samsung, poor form.

This kind of thing happens fairly often. Sometimes it's an obvious employee mistake, as in this case, because using the wrong screen capture would serve no useful purpose.

Sometimes it's an obvious attempt to deceive, as when Apple modified commercial websites for years to hide Flash sections during Jobs' iPhone demos. Or when their law team stretched photos and chose odd angles in their EU lawsuits to try to make the Tab look more like an iPad.

There's such little originality here on Samsung's part. They use identical shift and delete icons even...

Companies like RIM have used that Shift icon for years.

Sometimes similarities will happen because they just make sense. Like when Apple not only placed their voice input icon in the same place on their keyboard as some Android phones have had for years, but also used almost the same microphone icon as Android:

308059

gnasher729
Oct 19, 2011, 07:26 AM
Are you seriously trying to compare this to the ipad case? So you think people are going to buy the Tab, hide the Samsung logo, and tape a Apple logo on the back? I've been using Apple products since the 80's but the fanboyism in here is getting absolutely ridiculous.

That's because you can't read. I asked someone who seems to know something about the kind of laws involved a serious question. I asked the question for the same reason that I ask most questions: Because I'm curious and like to know the correct answers. If you jump to some utterly ridiculous conclusions, that is entirely your own problem.

kdarling
Oct 19, 2011, 11:22 AM
That's because you can't read. I asked someone who seems to know something about the kind of laws involved a serious question. I asked the question for the same reason that I ask most questions: Because I'm curious and like to know the correct answers.

I agree and support you, as that is indeed exactly what you did and why. My apologies for being too busy to respond right away, btw. Let me post what I had partially written up, with no editing yet:

1. How does this work with products like cheap fake handbags or cheap "Rolox" watches and the like, where the buyer knows exactly that they are getting a fake, but they buy it because it looks similar to the original, that is because they want others to think it might be an original? (With watches, I am told there are now plenty of watches that are actually made with the intent to defraud).

I used to collect slide rule and pilot watches, so I know what you mean about fakes. (In fact, some people deliberately look for fakes, because of the price, like my sister-in-law in NC who loves to come up to NYC to get famous lookalike bags.)

In that case, we're talking about counterfeits, which usually strive to be an almost exact (tho much cheaper) copy with the intent to truly fool the buyer or perhaps just the buyer's friends. *grin*

It's illegal to sell counterfeit goods, or to try to fool consumers about the source of products. (Some sellers try to get around that by advertising truthfully that they're selling faked copies. While that makes it legal to sell in one way, it of course can open them up to trademark claims by the original designer.)

Samsung didn't try to make an exact duplicate (counterfeit) iPad, nor do they try to pass it off as an Apple product. Now, if they had included a fake Home button and made the back look the same, then yes I'd say that would be a counterfeit (a "slavish" copy as Apple puts it).

thenerdal
Oct 19, 2011, 02:53 PM
I agree and support you, as that is indeed exactly what you did and why. My apologies for being too busy to respond right away, btw. Let me post what I had partially written up, with no editing yet:



I used to collect slide rule and pilot watches, so I know what you mean about fakes. (In fact, some people deliberately look for fakes, because of the price, like my sister-in-law in NC who loves to come up to NYC to get famous lookalike bags.)

In that case, we're talking about counterfeits, which usually strive to be an almost exact (tho much cheaper) copy with the intent to truly fool the buyer or perhaps just the buyer's friends. *grin*

It's illegal to sell counterfeit goods, or to try to fool consumers about the source of products. (Some sellers try to get around that by advertising truthfully that they're selling faked copies. While that makes it legal to sell in one way, it of course can open them up to trademark claims by the original designer.)

Samsung didn't try to make an exact duplicate (counterfeit) iPad, nor do they try to pass it off as an Apple product. Now, if they had included a fake Home button and made the back look the same, then yes I'd say that would be a counterfeit (a "slavish" copy as Apple puts it).

You know your stuff. :D

eMace
Oct 21, 2011, 02:43 PM
That's because you can't read. I asked someone who seems to know something about the kind of laws involved a serious question. I asked the question for the same reason that I ask most questions: Because I'm curious and like to know the correct answers. If you jump to some utterly ridiculous conclusions, that is entirely your own problem.

Get out of here with that sneaky lawyer speak. That's where you were trying to go with that post. Your whole tone in this thread has been that the Tab is a "replica" of the iPad.



It's not whether you can distinguish between them. If a friend visits you with an iPad shortly before your birthday, and you tell your mother that you would like an iPad just like that for your birthday, what are the chances that she would buy the wrong one for you? Or if your mother watched you using your iPad and tried it, and she goes to a store to buy one for herself? If she goes to a Sony store, and the Sony salespeople convince her that the Sony tablet, which looks very much different to her, will serve her just as well or better than an iPad, and she buys it, that's proper competition. But if she buys a Samsung tablet _thinking_ that she is getting an iPad, that is a rip-off.

If you had an iPad, Samsung tablet, Toshiba tablet, and Sony tablet, you would very easily tell the Toshiba and Sony tablet apart, even from a larger distance. The iPad and Samsung, you wouldn't. Which is exactly the point that Apple makes. And the confusion is not about people holding them side by side and not seeing which is which, but people who see a Samsung tablet on its own and think it is an iPad.

thenerdal
Oct 21, 2011, 03:42 PM
Get out of here with that sneaky lawyer speak. That's where you were trying to go with that post. Your whole tone in this thread has been that the Tab is a "replica" of the iPad.

But it's not a replica. It's similar, but not a replica.

danahn17
Oct 21, 2011, 04:04 PM
What can you really expect from a company like this?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13394128&postcount=26

A little OT but.... while I'm not saying what Samsung is doing is right, it is a little unfair to portray Samsung like this. The rules for businesses and marketing in foreign countries is much different from the USA because of cultural differences, and often times bribery is okay or even expected (just pick up any International Marketing textbook and read a little).

It's not morally correct (at least from our cultural standpoint) but it's one of those gray areas in business. If you dug into it carefully, you'll find many American companies doing the same abroad. Some get caught and some don't. That's all.

And surprisingly (or not), it happens in the US too. Until a few years ago, it was okay (even expected) that pharmaceutical companies buy healthcare providers expensive dinners (think Ruth's Chris) in return for listening to why their products are so great and useful...

Lark.Landon
Sep 6, 2012, 10:58 PM
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end for ever

Death-T
Sep 7, 2012, 10:19 AM
This case is about whether an ordinary consumer could be confused by similarities between an iPad and a Samsung tablet. A well-prepared Samsung lawyer should be able to keep them apart from two hundred yards away, blindfolded, or he isn't doing his job and should be fired on the spot.




Owning a Samsung TV, I can say that it looks definitely different from a Sony TV (haven't ever looked at Toshiba closely). Different enough that a Samsung lawyer should recognise it from quite a distance.


Exactly Apple's point.




It's not whether you can distinguish between them. If a friend visits you with an iPad shortly before your birthday, and you tell your mother that you would like an iPad just like that for your birthday, what are the chances that she would buy the wrong one for you? Or if your mother watched you using your iPad and tried it, and she goes to a store to buy one for herself? If she goes to a Sony store, and the Sony salespeople convince her that the Sony tablet, which looks very much different to her, will serve her just as well or better than an iPad, and she buys it, that's proper competition. But if she buys a Samsung tablet _thinking_ that she is getting an iPad, that is a rip-off.

Um, whenever you're making a $400+ purchase, you're at least going to read the name of the product you're buying. If your kid asks you to buy him an iPad, you're not going to buy a Samsung or any other tablet just because they look similar--the $400+ box you're putting in your shopping cart won't say 'iPad' if it's not an iPad. Besides, most customers can tell the difference between an iPad and another tablet. The average customer will probably simplify the difference as "Oh that's an iPad" or "Oh that's a Droid". There's a better chance someone will confuse an Android tablet for another Android tablet than an Android tablet with an iPad which have two totally different operating systems. This is just a plain bad hypothetical example for your argument.