Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales Goes into Effect as Apple Posts Bond
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly, but I might add that what people fail to understand is that nothing force a company to licence its patented tech.
It's up to a company to decide whether they want to gain cash through licensing or want to keep the patented inventions for themselves to keep an innovating edge.
Apple has made the business decision to keep its patented inventions, that are not part of a standard, to themselves.
It's funny how many people fail to see that Apple's iPhone & iPad were the results of many years of massive R&D investments from a company that barely had the means (10 years after almost being bankrupt). But now that Apple is on top of a mountain of cash people think it's okay to abuse its rights?
Sometimes I feel people are just jealous of the way things unfolded... In retrospect the decision Apple took made perfect sense (while being ridiculed and critiqued every time) and people are just angry with their own lack of vision. Apple went from a nobody in the phone market to the n°1 profit earner of the mobile industry (while still selling only a fraction of the market's devices), companies that were leaders now are struggling (Nokia), and Samsung benefited from strait up copying Apple's designs to become the second player of the market (profits).
On the other side Samsung decided to license some of its telecommunication patents and, in order for them to become a telecommunication standard, promised to treat all people licensing them equally. And Apple doesn't feel that it has been treated equally.
Except the ban was granted for the design patents (D677, D889) not over the Trade dress parts of the complaint. So no, this isn't about "Stealing Apple's trade dress" (you can't really "steal" trade dress anyhow).
No, it's not good in ANY way for the consumer.
It's only beneficial for Apple in a near monopolistic way.
Agree
Never thought I'd admit this after a decade of using Apple systems, but I'm not proud of their recent years with regards to these suits. Whether they have merit or not, Apple has a ton of cash they're sitting on, and it seems they're more interested in using it for these types of monopolistic maneuvers and strong arming.
Exactly, but it's going to be difficult for Samsung to hold that line now, seeing that people that took time to build something for themselves (MSFT) produced very different competing products and designs, it just took time.
Today, years after their original introduction we finally see competing products that weren't produced to copy Apple's idea, so their are obviously not the only way to solve the mobile problem.
All MSFT design are pretty different and rely on a different usage case of a tablet or phone, then there is the Kindle fire, another idea of a tablet etc.
You didn't really understand my post at all.
The consumer (who's point I was putting across) doesn't give a rats ass what the lawsuit is about. All the consumer knows is that its yet another 'Apple gets Samsung product banned' lawsuit.
Its old, its pathetic. Whats even more stupid is that this is an old model and its been changed in later models to avoid such infringement.
The point here is that Apple is using a bunch of VERY ambiguous patents to stop competition. This hurts the consumer.
The consumer does care because if people who revolutionize technology can't reap the rewards for their ingenuity it becomes a disincentive to invent and create. That creates a world of inferior products because anyone who does anything remarkable will just be robbed.
Allowing thieves like Samsung to continue only hurt the consumer in the end.
----------
Yeah they should not pick on little mom and pops like Samsung. If they don't defend their designs they might as well close up shop.
For this injunction, the only thing being considered is the Apple Design Patent. See below. (It's very much like the German injunction last year over that EU design registration.)
Interestingly, before the iPad came out in 2010, that same frontal design had been used in several products, including a 2008 Canadian designed Windows slate which looked similar even down to the slimness:
Samsung (and others) had already come up with that same frontal design on their own in a 2006 picture frame, albeit with a much deeper back.
Apple, however, made the shape popular. Following a popular trend is different from copying a previously unknown design.
None of those examples show close copies, but general similarity in shapes.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think "copy" means what you think it does
Last edited:
For this injunction, the only thing being considered is the Apple Design Patent. (In other words, it's like that German injunction last year over that EU design registration.)
View attachment 345569
Interestingly, before the iPad came out in 2010, that same frontal design had been used in several products, and at least one Canadian designed Windows slate looked similar even down to the slimness:
View attachment 345570
Samsung (and others) had already come up with that same frontal design themselves in a 2006 picture frame, albeit with a much deeper back.
Apple, however, made the shape popular. Following a popular trend is different from copying a previously unknown design.
None of those examples show close copies, but general similarity in shapes.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think "copy" means what you think it does
As a whole it was meant to look and feel like an iPad. From the colors, the shape, the packaging and the icons.
Oh I agree, the Tab was clearly meant to ride on the iPad's popularity.
However, you're talking about overall trade dress, which was not the reason for this injunction, and is a separate topic that has yet to be decided in court.
This injunction was solely about a possible infringement (also not decided in court yet) of a particular Design Patent, which like the design registration in Germany, is pretty generic in shape.
That's what bothers me about the case. Samsung's intention was to mimic. That may not meet the criteria for patent infringement, but IMHO there is enough there to ban the sales of a product that was clearly meant to copy
Not at all, they make great components
They just don't know how to steal the concept as whole
Thank you for your intelligent and informed post. The fanbois visceral reactions get really annoying at timesFor this injunction, the only thing being considered is the Apple Design Patent. (In other words, it's like that German injunction last year over that EU design registration.)
View attachment 345582
Interestingly, before the iPad came out in 2010, that same frontal design had been used in several products, including a 2008 Canadian designed Windows slate which looked similar even down to the slimness:
View attachment 345576
Samsung (and others) had already come up with that same frontal design themselves in a 2006 picture frame, albeit with a much deeper back.
Apple, however, made the shape popular. Following a popular trend is different from copying a previously unknown design.
None of those examples show close copies, but general similarity in shapes.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think "copy" means what you think it does
----------
I guess i should have been more facetious... The point is that you've far from banned samsung products from your home. I would bet there are many other components in your home made by samsung...they are huge
I'd like to know what those exact design patents are. In my view, the entire patent process has been abused for years and is total crap at this point. Some many pointless and useless patents are handed out daily for things that offer no real innovation and serve no other purpose but to stifle competition in the marketplace.
----------
For this injunction, the only thing being considered is the Apple Design Patent. (In other words, it's like that German injunction last year over that EU design registration.)
View attachment 345582
Interestingly, before the iPad came out in 2010, that same frontal design had been used in several products, including a 2008 Canadian designed Windows slate which looked similar even down to the slimness:
View attachment 345576
Samsung (and others) had already come up with that same frontal design themselves in a 2006 picture frame, albeit with a much deeper back.
Apple, however, made the shape popular. Following a popular trend is different from copying a previously unknown design.
None of those examples show close copies, but general similarity in shapes.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think "copy" means what you think it does
As usual, thank you Kdarling. You have proven exactly what I was thinking. It's all petty and EXTREMELY subjective. The only thing I see happening here is the attempt to stifle competition. Apple should be ashamed.
----------
I own an 2 iPads, have every iPhone since the 3G, and I'm on my 3rd Nano. I own 0 Android products. So your assumption is incorrect.
Really? I fail to see the real difference between the iPad, the Tab, the Surface, and this drawing:
It's literally a flat rectangle with a screen that was patented. What are the differences? Squared off vs round corners??? I can't believe the USPTO hands out patents for such basic design. It's just too generic to patent in my mind. Patenting some new button design or something would make sense, but not this.
----------
What ingenuity? (See image above)
... None of those examples show close copies, but general similarity in shapes.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think "copy" means what you think it does
Thanks for the added details on this case—I agree, it’s very limited in scope. I won’t pretend to judge the merits of this specific case (and the patent system as a whole? don’t get me started) but some of my linked examples DO show Samsung making “close copies” and much more than “general similarity”—too many details mimicking Apple to be by accident. I would say ALL of the examples here except the last one, in fact:
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/samsung-copycat-e1317254306784.jpg
(I also found it comical, more than anything truly bad, that after Apple added the white option to the iPhone, Samsung decided to add a white option for their black phones too. Not silver, not colors... white by some coincidence. This isn’t to say that Apple owns the rights to that detail or any other, merely that I’m seeing a pattern of Samsung not giving the market the original thinking I’d rather see!)
As for that 2008 Electrovaya tablet... I think we can agree that Samsung’s design is a LOT closer to the iPad than either is to that older slate, when you really see the thing:
As your link indicates, Apple’s patent covers the whole device, back and edges too, not just one angle. (There is certainly similarity from the front alone, which is very simple.) How similar is too similar? Apparently the courts have drawn that line, but I do think it’s a vague area.
Last edited:
There is only one design patent at issue here and it is cited in the court's opinion: D504,889.
Perhaps so, but, in this instance, all four judges who have looked at this disagree with you.
----------
Not true. The PI was granted only on the D'889. The order reads:
"Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer, and any product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and embodies any design contained in U.S. Design Patent No. D504,889." See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88436, *22 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
Earlier, the District Court denied a PI on the D'677 and that ruling was affirmed by the CAFC. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9720, *41 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[W]e affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the . . . D'677" patent).
While that is the legal issue, I guarantee the look of everything is what Steve saw years back and went ballistic. Then he told people to find a patent on which to base a lawsuit. The constant denial of people's thoughts and mindset is ridiculous.