Apple Granted Injunction Barring Sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in European Union

[whooleytoo]

You did get the memo saying that this was from 5 years ago which is definitely a few years before Apple released the iPad, right?

Yes, I guessed that's what he meant when he posted "From 2006". Did I not use enough smileys?

It's pretty obvious there is a strong similarity in form factor between that digital picture frame and the iPad design. I don't know if the overall form factor is the issue at stake (and I'm sure Apple might argue that picture frames and tablet devices are in different 'domains'), but I'm 100% on Samsung's side here. I wonder, if they win, if they could sue and get an injunction against Apple?

 

[divinox]

how can fanboys be SO BLIND? are you going to tell me samsung had a time machine?

from 2006

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

So much for Apples innovative design. Looks like we have a thief after all, its just that all Apple-heads got it all backwards.

Thank you from all of us for that link... people should read all three pages of the article. What an incredibly broken system (and I'm not prone to making such dramatic comments).

The only redeeming factor is that if Samsung gets these shotgun design entries reviewed and the injunction lifted, Apple has to pay them damages.

Not that it matters to Apple. I don't think they expect to win. As I said previously, it seems clear that it's a broad delaying tactic while Apple prepares more realistic patent attacks in each individual country. Meanwhile, Samsung can't sell while the market and its tablet reviews are hot, and could lose lots of mind share.

You mean when, right? And yes, the choice of venue clearly signals that Apples intent is to delay (at "any" cost) and nothing else.

Wow, just wow. This makes the District Court of East Texas seem like the embodiment of reason and fairness.

I look forward to Apple getting slammed and getting slammed hard over this. And I hope that they get slammed harder in the court of public opinion than in the court of law.

The worst part of it is the realization that Samsung had no notice of any action until they received the injunction - no chance to argue, no chance to challenge Cupertino's claim. The Right Of Accused To Confront Witnesses is pretty fundamental to US law - it's part of our Bill of Rights. That right seems to be completely lacking for this injunction - Apple exploited the system to blindside a competitor.

The fact that Apple went in secret to block a competitor, without that competitor being able to defend itself against accusations made by Apple, just stinks. Something is rotten in Cupertino.




Apple stands to lose much more in the "mind share" game. A huge part of Apple's sales are due to a "cool factor" associated with Apple. Many here are already questioning whether "Apple is cool" - if the teens and pre-teens that are in the Apple stores updating their Facebook pages decide that "Apple is uncool", the stock will be under $100 tout suite.

To be fair, i dont think the system has experienced much trolling; thus, id rather put blame on Apple than the system (which now, however, need to be revised to stop this from happening in the future).

Agree with the rest.

 

[Apple...]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

In fact, this incident has only served to get me interested in buying one in the UK when this stupid idiotic case gets thrown out of court eventually which it probably will seeing as there's no case to answer against Samsung at all!

Good point. By doing this, Apple gives Samsung more cred and exposure as a worthy competitor.

It's easy to tell when Apple is worried about something; they start slamming it in their stage presentations, such as when Jobs repeated that Samsung misquote earlier this year about "slow" sales. When Apple is confident, they don't mention the competition at all.

Don't all companies do that?

 

[DeathChill]

Apple stands to lose much more in the "mind share" game. A huge part of Apple's sales are due to a "cool factor" associated with Apple. Many here are already questioning whether "Apple is cool" - if the teens and pre-teens that are in the Apple stores updating their Facebook pages decide that "Apple is uncool", the stock will be under $100 tout suite.

I really imagine a huge part of Apple's sales are due to their focus on hardware and software design and interaction. I have a hard time picturing people dropping billions upon billions of dollars (each quarter) for Apple products if they didn't enjoy them.

 

[AidenShaw]

I really imagine a huge part of Apple's sales are due to their focus on hardware and software design and interaction. I have a hard time picturing people dropping billions upon billions of dollars (each quarter) for Apple products if they didn't enjoy them.

...and enjoy showing them off

I'm amused that some Iphone cases feature a hole so that the Apple logo is visible.

 

[GekiRed]

Apple sues the competition when they start having to play catch-up technologically, and the racists come out of the woodwork?

I'm pretty ashamed to even own an Apple product, and be associated with you people.

Matariel, you have my respect for saying what you did!

The only reason why I even own an iPod Touch is because of the fact that there are a lot of good Apps out there, especially ones for epileptics like myself as well as games like Chaos Rings and Deathsmiles.

At the end of the day you've just got to love Apple's hypocrisy... NOT! They have no problem using Samsung to make the displays for the iPad 2 and yet, when Samsung make a tablet device which uses a completely different OS and as I said in a earlier post is better than the iPad in certain areas, they decide to sue Samsung!

I'm proud to say that I'm a Samsung fanboy (I previously owned an Omnia and am currently the very proud owner of a Galaxy S II which is WAY better than a Crapple iPhone 4!) and I'm disgusted that there are racists in this thread saying that Samsung deserve everything they get just because they dare to be innovative whereas Apple steal ideas. Hell, even Steve "Bad Karma" Jobs has admitted that he's proud that Apple steals ideas rather than create ideas!

If it wasn't for the likes of Samsung and LG, there wouldn't even be a iPad or iPad 2 seeing as the devices and parts for them are made in places like South Korea and China.

On another note, it's certainly interesting to note that a lot of the pro-Samsung posts in this thread have been minus-voted. Gee, I wonder why... Could it be that the Apple fantrolls who voted against these posts are scared that their precious Apple isn't as perfect as the company makes it out to be?

That's why I'm not an Apple fanboy at all. I'd rather be a fan of that loser Michael Vick than be a fanboy of a company that sues another company for daring to do things better in certain areas while still using that same company to make parts for their own tablet device!

Mark my words, Apple will get what they deserve in the end and it definitely won't go in their favour at the end of the day!

 

[Oletros]

If you think the injunction is solely based upon the Case shape you insult the German Court.

Yes, it was solely based on case shape and design.

Ups, no, you can't forget the part that says "when is on there are colored icons"

The ridiculous part is the number of people in this thread who invent their own claims (instead of reading Apple's actual claims) and then dismiss them.

As you have done?

 

[GekiRed]

Just remember this when it comes to Apple and their hypocrisy (said in a posh British accent): "Apple: We don't DO innovation or creativity or originality. Why? Because we're Apple and we can do what the *bleep* we like and we don't care what people think of us because we're proud of stealing the ideas of others and claiming that they're our ideas in the first place!"

- GekiRed (Hater of Apple Fanboy/Girls who think that Apple is the best thing since grilled cheese and proud of it!)

 

[BC2009]

Supposedly Samsung did in fact have their arguments heard by the German courts before an injunction was granted (despite their cries that they were not heard). FOSS Patents reports that Samsung filed a preliminary plea stating their defense against a possible request by Apple for an injunction. Apparently their arguments were not strong enough to overcome the infringements on the registered community design.

I think Samsung's best hope now is to jump in with Jay-Tech in trying to invalidate Apple's community design registration. If you ask me, it makes sense that Apple is asserting the IP rights they have been granted - it is a definite competitive advantage. This is the big leagues and Samsung certainly could have gone after Apple's community design and design patents in the USA over a year ago when the iPad was released. This is how the big boys play. I'm not sure if invalidation of Apple's community design would mean damages against Apple related to the injunction. However, if Apple loses their lawsuit despite the community design registration being upheld then Apple will owe Samsung for lost sales - that's the liability that comes with a preliminary injunction in the EU. Those "lost sales" amounts may actually be higher than the actual sales Samsung would have achieved if Apple had not filed for the injunction given how poorly adoption of Honeycomb Tablets has been coming along.

I'm guessing that Apple is pretty certain of themselves in this. Which makes sense since the best arguments Samsung gave in their preemptive plea were "no urgency for an injunction" and "we plan to invalidate Apple's community design registration". It sounds like Apple has a pretty good case against them.

Most of the arguments in this thread seem to say that the design registration is too general. It does not change the fact that Apple does have the design registered and Samsung and others probably knew about that before proceeding with their own designs. These manufacturers really should have filed for an invalidation much earlier on. They are now faced with trying to do that after they have a product that is ready to ship or has shipped. Given that the courts were not asked to validate the design registration, but simply to enforce it, their decision for an injunction makes perfect sense. They are required to enforce these design registrations so long as they are deemed legally valid. How long that validity may be upheld is another question.

 

[KnightWRX]

Supposedly Samsung did in fact have their arguments heard by the German courts before an injunction was granted (despite their cries that they were not heard). FOSS Patents reports ...

Never believe anything you read on that site. Florian Mueller doesn't know his behind from a hole in the ground.

 

[Oletros]

I'm guessing that Apple is pretty certain of themselves in this. Which makes sense since the best arguments Samsung gave in their preemptive plea were "no urgency for an injunction" and "we plan to invalidate Apple's community design registration". It sounds like Apple has a pretty good case against them.

And what other argumets can they make when you have see the community design?

 

[ComputersaysNo]

About this 2006 Samsung tablet.

just read an article that Apple filed the European patent for it as far back as 2004. Ill post the translated article in a minute.

The main weapon of the latest Apple Galaxy tablet market Samsung to ban, according to the Amsterdam European model Chiever trademark registration of the iPad in 2004. The smartphone manufacturer and tablet allows for the protection of new designs are often used by European design registrations. Research by Chiever that the group holds less than 1484 European registrations.

The nearly 1500 design registrations that Apple has already done, cover very different things. Examples include covers for the iPhone, packaging, iPods, iPads and keyboards. Incidentally Samsung surpasses rival even if the models are merely numbers. The research shows that Samsung Chiever since 2003 a total of 3367 models deposited, more than twice the number of Apple. Among these records are also a number of models that relate to the Galaxy. ,, But Samsung will have little additional benefit,''said Kist. 'The registration of Apple's much older models and also in the duty, first come, first served.'' In the Dutch case, the court in The Hague ruling on September 15. If Apple gets right, following the ban on Samsung products at the earliest on October 13, left the court during the session know.

In the legal proceedings in Germany, Apple has successfully rely on his European model. The German court ruled that Samsung Galaxy are not allowed on the market across Europe, with the exception of the Netherlands where a separate proceedings. Samsung dropped out Friday against the ruling to appeal. The German case shows track marks of Advisor Bas Kist Chiever see how powerful a European design right can be. In the Dutch case relies Apple, in addition to patent rights on the European model registration. Given the similarity between the Galaxy and the box that Apple expects iPad in the Netherlands will draw the longest straw.


The European design law has existed since 2003. It provides legal protection for the appearance of certain products in the European Union, so that competitors can not blindly imitate a model. This is separate from the so-called patent or patent to the technology of a legally protected device.

 

[BaldiMac]

As you have done?

What in the world are you talking about? Did you really just use the "I know you are buy what am I?" defense?

 

[vitzr]

As a huge Apple enthusiast and long time user, I am greatly disappointed. This tactic smacks of bullying and very bad judgement.

Apple used to be a better, classier operation, than to do something like this.

If Apple were struggling to survive, and this was a make or break issue then it might be different.

Left alone to sell their product freely, Samsung is still trailing Apple by a distance so far they are no threat at all, and we all know that.

For Apple to pull a stunt like this is to send the world a message that there is no stopping the dictatorial menacing bully.

Apple wants everyone marching in lock step to their anthem. A cadre of drones.

 

[Oletros]

About this 2006 Samsung tablet.
Image


just read an article that Apple filed the European patent for it as far back as 2004. Ill post the translated article in a minute.

Can you show me a tablet from Apple before 2.006? And no, is not a patent, is a community design

What in the world are you talking about? Did you really just use the "I know you are buy what am I?" defense?

No, just that the person you have quoted was totally right and was you which hasn't read what he was saying or what the filling was.

 

[kdarling]

Supposedly Samsung did in fact have their arguments heard by the German courts before an injunction was granted (despite their cries that they were not heard).

Yes, Samsung's EU lawyers must've found the design registration and filed a preemptive plea before sales started, just in case Apple said anything.

Since their plea was targeted only at that design document, it apparently only had two arguments: that they and others were going to dispute the drawing's registration, and that therefore there was no urgency to issue a sales injunction.

Without Apple telling them ahead of time what they would complain about, that's about all they could do in a preemptive plea. With no hearing, it's like asking defendants to make up their total defense before hearing what all they're charged with.

Apparently their arguments were not strong enough to overcome the infringements on the registered community design.

If EU law says that a registered design is considered valid until proven otherwise, then no clairvoyant preemptive argument could help.

People are right that the smart thing for Samsung to have done, would've been to also file a request to invalidate the drawing before going to market. Of course, hindsight is 20-20.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, just that the person you have quoted was totally right and was you which hasn't read what he was saying or what the filling was.

The person I quoted said "All it takes is a touchscreen and a rectangular shape and you're infringing on a patent?"

This injunction had nothing to do with a touchscreen or a patent. And it's only about a rectangular shape in conjunction with other aspects of the design. Nothing the poster said was correct.

I don't read German or have any in depth knowledge of German or EU laws. If Apple's claims are as general as the more informed here have claimed, I think it is pretty weak. But, like most posters here, I have no idea what the standards are in the EU to uphold a community design registration.

 

[ComputersaysNo]

Can you show me a tablet from Apple before 2.006? And no, is not a patent, is a community designs.

You're asking me to show a tablet

 

[Oletros]

You're asking me to show a tablet

No, the point of the photo frame was not invalidating the community design but that Samsung has copied iPad design.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

The person I quoted said "All it takes is a touchscreen and a rectangular shape and you're infringing on a patent?"

This injunction had nothing to do with a touchscreen or a patent. And it's only about a rectangular shape in conjunction with other aspects of the design. Nothing the poster said was correct.

I don't read German or have any in depth knowledge of German or EU laws. If Apple's claims are as general as the more informed here have claimed, I think it is pretty weak. But, like most posters here, I have no idea what the standards are in the EU to uphold a community design registration.

I stand corrected

 

[androidfan]

Those who can't innovate litigate

 

[BaldiMac]

Those who can't innovate litigate

It rhymes, so it must be true.

 

[androidfan]

It rhymes, so it must be true.

Well if apple is suing everyone then it must be true.

 

[BC2009]

Those who can't innovate litigate

It rhymes, so it must be true.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Never believe anything you read on that site. Florian Mueller doesn't know his behind from a hole in the ground.

In find it interesting that he actually happens to be from Germany (maybe that region) and has litigated in that court before. He certainly has some insight into the local law. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your word for it on his ability to identify his own behind when placed in a lineup with several holes in the ground. His opinion comes with about as many references as your own, so I'll take them both with a grain of salt.

Yes, Samsung's EU lawyers must've found the design registration and filed a preemptive plea before sales started, just in case Apple said anything.

Since their plea was targeted only at that design document, it apparently only had two arguments: that they and others were going to dispute the drawing's registration, and that therefore there was no urgency to issue a sales injunction.

Without Apple telling them ahead of time what they would complain about, that's about all they could do in a preemptive plea. With no hearing, it's like asking defendants to make up their total defense before hearing what all they're charged with.

Given the timing, I am guessing that after what happened in Australia, Samsung jumped right on the preemptive plea in Germany (where Apple was most likely to file their request).

I agree that it's a strange policy to have a defendant file a preemptive defense. By doing say, a potential defendant has to play the part of their competitor, call out all potential similarities, and then justify them with differences. This can essentially give your competitor an upper hand because you may find similarities that they might overlook.

Samsung probably realized they would need more time to put together their case on invalidating the design registration, but having that filed first might have helped them since a court can't put much stock in "we plan to get design invalidated, but we have not taken any such action yet".

Personally, I think I prefer the US standard of having to demonstrate a strong likelihood of winning the case to win an injunction. The EU law seems to favor those who have the money to take on the liability of an injunction in case they lose.

 

[androidfan]

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

I think in the trial of public opinion the glove does fit on apples hand, GUILTY!

 

[Oletros]

He certainly has some insight into the local law. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your word for it on his ability to identify his own behind when placed in a lineup with several holes in the ground. His opinion comes with about as many references as your own, so I'll take them both with a grain of salt.

It has such insight that he "didn't knew" that those injuctions were almost granted by law and said that if it has granted is because Samsung will lose the case.