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

[nwcs]

Oh, innovation like iOS 5.0?
The notification center stolen whole cloth from Android?
The new camera app accessible from the lock screen, a feature stolen from Microsoft, and utilising a volume button for the shutter release, a feature stolen from a BLOCKED 3rd party camera app?
I could go on...

Apple's hypocrisy is frankly amazing, almost as amazing as the hypocrisy of the rabid Apple fanboy.

I don't think anyone complains when a company takes a similar idea from another company and makes it their own. Especially when that idea isn't patented (such as the notification screen in Android, which probably didn't originate with them anyway). Where people complain is when it's copied without any effort to make it their own.

But you're not winning any points yourself. You've basically set up the argument, as so many do, that if anyone disagrees with you then they are automatically wrong. Not a good way to get anyone to consider your points.

 

[wovel]

This has nothing to do with Samsung, Apple is systematically suing all OEM manufacturers of Android handsets/tablets, and Samsung is largest of them all.

They're too ***** to sue Google, because Google has the power to kick their ass in the courtroom.

Apple are scared s***less of Android, because they can't move fast enough to stay ahead of it, so they're choosing to "win" by pulling up the goal posts and declaring victory.

Google would not bring anymore legal muscle then Samsung. The Oracle suit is also proving that Google may be very vulnerable in court.

The biggest thing you miss with this case is that the patent is related to a hardware device, and google does not make one.

One final note, when is Google going to stand up for their developers against Lodsys, it looks like they are content to just stand by and let Apple do all the work. I understand there is almost no money in Android apps, but there never will be if Google can't be bothered to step up to the plate.

 

[writingdevil]

Yeah, kinda makes you wonder why Archos hasn't sued Apple yet.

err, exactly which patent or form factor is apple infringing?

 

[MH01]

The question is no longer relevant. It has been decided through the courts that it is similar enough - substantially similar enough to warrant an injunction. The issue has been put up for examination in the clear light of day. Those who are paid to know the answer to that question have already decided.



Looks like it isn't "totally different" after all.

I'm wondering what gives *you* the right (not write) and the expertise to decide otherwise?

Ha ha ha this coming from you! What exact gives YOU the Write/Right to dismiss every other product other then Apples as subpar .... And proclaim every Apple product as industry changing. Google hypocrite, I think it has a reference to Fanboy and yourself

 

[gpat]

So it's cool when Android handsets look like Blackberrys but not iPhones?
Those types of handsets STILL exist, and RIM doesn't give two hoots.
Apple are simply abusing a broken patent system to cling onto a market lead that is slowly eroding.

No, but if the iPhone did not exist, the patent war would be RIM vs Android OEMs instead Apple vs Android OEMs. And would look exactly the same, except for the fact that Android phones would be a lot less evolved compared to what they are now, because there is a lot more to copy from Apple than from RIM. Using the same form factor of a competitor is a thing, blatantly copying its perceived look and feel is another.

 

[840quadra]

I would have to agree with a few posts here that indicate that much of the Apple related news (across the net) is related to Patent lawsuits these days. That being said, it is dominating quite a bit of the news on many tech companies recently.

A sign of the current economic times?

Apple claims copyright on another company's product:

Fanboys: "Take that! Justice has been served"


Another company claims copyright on something Apple does:

Fanboys: "OMG give it up! Apple has won"

So...

Anything to contribute to the conversation, or are we just splashing the water for a bit?

Careful, I hear there are quite a few Apple supporting Piranha in this Apple news ocean!

 

[Matariel]

Using the same form factor of a competitor is a thing, blatantly copying its perceived look and feel is another.

This is where Apple's position falls down.
Apple did not invent the slate tablet.
Apple did not invent glass panelled LCDs.
Apple did not invent rectangle electronic devices.

Their claims that the "hardware" violates their patents is a joke, plain and simple. If it were the hardware, they'd be suing Windows tablet manufacturers too, because by this time next year the market will be flooded with "iPad-like" Windows 8 tablets.
It's an Android land-grab, nothing more.

 

[jakeOSX]

here is an article from techdirt. it is about a year old, but is good to demonstrate:

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wirele...-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml

this shows who was SUING who at that time over mobile patents. Apple was being sued by four different groups over the iphone.

the thing is about these 'patents' is that they are, in a lot of ways, rediculous. why can i get a 'patent' on a design. seriously? patents were suppose to protect INVENTORS.

here is what is happening instead. major corporations (and patent troll groups) are amassing hundreds of these things... not really based on 'inventions' but but writing up patents and seeing what they get.

then they sue the competition.

remember lodsys? those guys suing all the app developers? well, they 'invented' that, so all of those developers should pay up or go out of business, right? i mean they were just copying....

lodsys doesn't make anything, btw.

if there were truly something inventive about the iPad, like brand new battery tech, or bendable display, that wound be one thing. but the damn thing is a bigger iphone... and the iphone violated quite a few patents by other people.

so, do you think that the iphone should no longer be sold because apple 'copied' something someone else did?

when you sue someone it says "i can't do better than that, so here, talk to my lawyers"

apple doesn't need to do that, the people want iPads. all this does is make them look bad. or worse, make them look like microsoft.


oh, and if you don't think patents are bad, go try to make something, whether it be a computer program, a phone, something. see how long it takes a lawyer to show up at your door.

edit: spelling errors.

also, a link about lodsys
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wirele...-app-payment-ecosystem-is-that-so-wrong.shtml

here is one about a patent for ordering food on your phone. from apple.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071227/132242.shtml

 

[wegster]

Hypothetical situation to consider: I own a tech company and we have a great idea that will revolutionize a given product category and do wonderful things for the consumers in general that johnalan on MacRumors is so concerned about. We invest millions of dollars, bet the whole company and the livelihoods of hundreds of employees on this idea to do the requisite R&D to create the things we need. We put this amazing product on the shelves and have to charge a bit to recoup our R&D expenses. Meanwhile, a competitor sees our ideas (once we've also expended the energy and money in the market proving it's a viable concept) and clones it, undercutting us because they have nothing to lose. Other companies join in and eventually, we're lost in a sea of cheap clones.

That either puts my innovative company out of business or discourages other companies from bothering to try new ideas because they know there's no protection for their work.

Explain to me how that scenario is good for consumers in general.

And there is the crux of the problem. What defines "innovation"? Apparently not common sense looking back to Amazon One-Click patents. Compuserve retroactively going after people using the .gif format, and what about domain squatters just buying up dictionary words and brand names 15+ years ago?

You're right in that I agree if a company has true innovation, not just a slightly different combination of existing prior work (one click shopping cart), and files a (sane) patent, they should have a period of time in which to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If they file patents and don't release a product, and that patent is simply extending prior art or is common sense, versus true technical achievements, like a new synthetic material, a new CPU (which technically builds on top of existing ideas, so should not be able to be copied intact, but that does not mean the ideas such as for example, L1-L3 cache, can not be), should be protected for a period of time, but common sense or prior art enhancements should be very limited, if at all.

Apple didn't write the first graphical user interface (xerox parc) nor invent the mouse, nor were they particularly great at multimedia or graphics (contrasted to Amiga, Atari etc.). They didn't invent the LCD, nor the tablet. They weren't the first touch interface, either. One could easily argue that anything based on those items is simply a common sense extension, and assuming no apple copyright images were used, and no one secretly stole Apple's design files and CPU 'blueprints,' then once it entered the public eye, it shouldn't have protection at all, or for a very limited time, in that there is little actually revolutionary there.

Forbes said it well almost 10 years ago - the world is becoming insane with IP and litigation, where companies are formed solely to try to introduce and get approval on patents, to do little work of their own, to later try to 'blackmail' real companies based on those patents. There are quite a few areas, software certainly included, that it's entirely out of control. Common sense and intelligence should rule, but instead, lawyers and cash does, no matter how idiotic much litigation is. The mentioned Forbes article, an interesting read in hindsight.
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/032.html

Inkswamp - if you have a true technological innovation, it should take quite some time for most to reverse-engineer it or duplicate it. If not, and it's simply common sense or an extension of the ideas and work of others, then it's called competition - do it well enough that it will fare well once the copycats jump onboard. If it's something that can easily be copied within 6 months or so, I'd say it falls into common sense, not a patent. Somewhere between those two points is a balance, but it's unlikely that the current state of fairs is that balance. I'll take honest and reasonably fair (but perhaps a bit less profit) competition any day over a monopoly built on patents and the abuse thereof.

 

[gpat]

This is where Apple's position falls down.
Apple did not invent the slate tablet.
Apple did not invent glass panelled LCDs.
Apple did not invent rectangle electronic devices.

Their claims that the "hardware" violates their patents is a joke, plain and simple. If it were the hardware, they'd be suing Windows tablet manufacturers too, because by this time next year the market will be flooded with "iPad-like" Windows 8 tablets.
It's an Android land-grab, nothing more.

I believe they're suing the hardware OEMs because they're the ones making the profits, as Google gets revenues from advertising and searching. If they are actually suing Samsung because the Tab is the same form factor as the iPad, forget what I said.

 

[FlameofAnor]

I'm an Apple fanboy as much as the next user of this site, but this is bad for the consumer in general.

How so........ what people want to see is creative invention, not outright copying of existing products. How is that good for the consumer?

People say they want competition in the market place, but putting out me-too products doesn't push Apple to innovate. We need competitors who are putting in the same kind of research and effort to create new products, not spawning a bunch of lazy copycats.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Here is what someone a heck of a lot smarter than us here thinks:

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/07/my-suggestion-on-patent-law/

I definitely agree.

 

[Matariel]

And there is the crux of the problem. What defines "innovation"?

If Apple were suing Samsung because they were making tablets using glass panel LCDs and unibody Aluminium cases, then sure, they'd have a definite case. Apple has a legitimate patent for their unibody production and design techniques.
Right now, they're suing over nebulous and subjective "look and feel" arguments over general design.

If you showed a complete layman a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and an iPad 2, they'd have zero problem distinguishing between the two.
The iPad's "default" orientation is portrait, the Galaxy is landscape.
The iPad's UI is a grid of icons, the Galaxy is a Widget filled desktop.
I frankly have no idea what part of the physical design Apple can possibly claim the Galaxy infringes on, and the fact they're forcing injunctions on the sale of a competitor's device before any sort of judgement on the legitimacy of their claims has even been made is just wrong.

 

[farmboy]

I don't think there are that many Android handset manufacturers, but so far Apple have sued both Samsung and HTC, the two largest manufacturers.

They sued Nokia, but were forced to run away with their tails between their legs, and they've sued Microsoft, to which they came to an amicable cross licensing deal.

They sued Woolworths Australia in 2009 because a SUPERMARKET, the largest in the country, changed their logo to a W shaped like an Apple.

Two is hardly systematic.

Nokia + MS ≠ Android. Irrelevant to your initial claim. Regarding Nokia, Nokia wanted to charge Apple more for licensing some patents; Apple refused because they thought they should pay the same as everyone else. The parties settled. There was no "tail between their legs". Regarding MS, Apple failed to protect their user interface with appropriate patents, which MS didn't deny they copied, but copied from IBM instead of Apple. MS won. Apple has patent coverage on iPhone and iPad, so not the same here.

Speaking of irrelevant, Woolworths logo?

 

[BC2009]

Yeah, because everytime I shop for a Lexus IS250, I think they are all only as good as a Chevrolet J-body because those had 4 wheels and a steering too.

Ridiculous notion is ridiculous. Consumers don't seem to have quite as much "confusion" in other product segments.

I'm not saying that what Apple is saying is true in the case of the Galaxy Tab, but it seems to be at the core of their arguments against Samsung. I think it is true in some cases but not others. They are arguing that Samsung is creating "knock offs" -- and the reason you fight against "knock offs" is because people associate the lesser-quality of the "knock off" with your product. I saw a arcade game at an amusement park that dispensed iPad Nano's once -- but upon closer inspection I could see they were not iPad Nanos at all, but very closely resembling.

I also have not read the design patents on the iPad or iPad 2 (I've only read the iPhone one -- which Samsung infringes almost entirely). But it is quite possible that the claims in the design patents for iPad 2 are being infringed. In this case it was the EU, and I don't know if they have design patents in the same sense. The source article referred to " Community design no. 000181607-0001" -- which I have not read. But perhaps the EU has stricter laws with differentiation of product designs -- no idea on that point.

I'm just saying its not so much a matter of personal opinion as to whether or not the Galaxy Tab is "close enough" to an iPad to mean it is a "knock off", but rather what the law states in each locality. To me, all the companies are playing by the same laws so that is the only way to make it fair. If the laws don't seem fair, then folks should lobby to change them.

 

[FrozenTomato]

Or perhaps I've given away a lot.

There are others here with different stories to tell, but in my case, much of what I've invented has been copied and incorporated into many other company's products:

...And that is why Apple is the largest company and the world and you're not

 

[mcrain]

Skipping to the end...

Yes, I read none of the previous stuff.

My question is... "Are there massive lines in the Netherlands for the Tab 10.1? If not, why? If the situation were reversed, there would be lines in the Netherlands for months."

 

[Shrink]

The Asian education values on memorization and reproduction more than creativity though.

That's why Asians are so good at playing instruments (aka repeating the ideal).

And all African Americans got rhythm, and all Jews are cheap and clannish, and all Irish people are drunks, and all Poles are stupid, and...

OMG, come join us here on Earth!

Sorry, I know I'm off-topic, but this is too egregious to ignore.

 

[Matariel]

Nokia + MS ≠ Android. Irrelevant to your initial claim.

My point was that instead of actually progressing their own platform to compete, they're suing the competition.
Android, Nokia and Microsoft.

The Woolworths logo too, just shows that Apple are getting far too litigious.
I mean come on, they sued a supermarket chain, who actually sells Apples, for having an Apple shaped logo.

 

[divinox]

Samsung is essentially the poster boy for copying in the tech industry. They literally had one Galaxy Tab 10.1 design, they showed it at a trade show, and as soon as the iPad 2 was unveiled they went back to the drawing board and instead made something that was as close as possible to the iPad 2. Granted, I don't think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks as much like an iPad as the Samsung phones look like an iPhone, but the fact that they changed their design after the iPad 2 unveiling shows that they want to look as much as possible like the market leader.

I know a fair amount of back-and-forth copying is going to happen in the industry. So long as you produce enough innovation that your competitors want to use themselves then you can probably copy your competitors to some degree since you will either officially cross-license patents or you will just not sue one another because you don't want the counter-suit (this is probably protecting the HP TouchPad from Apple at the moment if HP acquired Palm's patents along with the company and Palm did not sell those independently).



If you are interested, go ahead and read this review from an Android developer. Probably the best, most level-headed review I have seen. I don't think Apple is scared of the Galaxy Tab, but scared that folks might associate the Galaxy Tab with the iPad and think the iPad is only as good as the Galaxy Tab.

From what i've read Palm split in early 2000 into two separate entities (PalmOne and PalmOS), one holding hardware and one holding software. Palm One later bought the tm for "Palm", and became known as simply Palm. Based on this, and the fact that they licensed the software from PalmOS (later PalmSource), one could argue that IP owned by Palm(One) (later aquired by HP) only - or primarily - concern hardware.

Of course, this is only true as far as "PalmOS" goes. WebOS, was intended as the successor of PalmOS, and was developed, at least initially, by Palm(One). Thus, Palm(One) (and thus HP) could make claims regarding software IP. Such IP, could however, of course be infringing on IP residing in what used to be PalmOS. Hard to tell.

----
Anyhow, as far as form goes some comments on this board are plain out retarded. If one is to make a device that one interacts with using touch, what would one do?

a) maximize screen real estate (everything else is just a waste of space)
b) for most purposes staying (somewhat) true to existing screen ratios make sense.
c) portable devices should be light and slim (for obvious reasons).

Ergo: Rectangular "iPad-looking" tabs are expected. The same can be said about "iPhone-looking" phones or whatever you want to throw at me.

Similarly, one can make the same argument regarding so called "Blackberry Phones" (not that i would ever call them that).
1) you want a keyboard that you can type on
2) You want to maximize screen real estate
3) All above needs to be accomplished with the obvious trade-off that is overall size of the device.

This is nothing new. Not at all really. Its Design 101*. Reminds me of the story 'bout Palm's CEO running around with lo-fi, wood, prototypes of the Palm making sure that it would fit in the pockets of people working at the company.

Yes, Apple changed the market. We all know that. So did Henry Ford - yet, we still allow people to make cars with 4 wheels, doors and a steering wheel. One must have an Apple far up ones ass not to understand how silly some of you look on a daily basis on this board.

* Heck, i used to draw wicked flatscreen tv-sets when i was 5. How ****ing brilliant of me to take something and make the good part (the screen) bigger, and the bad part (everything else) small. I deserve a ****ing nobel prize. Really? Get off the crack.

 

[phpmaven]

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.

"play catch-up technologically" That's a good one

 

[*LTD*]

And there is the crux of the problem. What defines "innovation"?

The courts, through IP law. That's their purpose. Seems like things are moving along nicely now. The system works. The wheat is getting separated from the chaff and we're getting a good look at where everyone stands after a re-shuffling of positions here and there.

On its own, "innovation" is too broad a term to admit of any one specific definition without someone piping up and saying it's wrong.

The courts don't decide what's actually "innovative." They simply decide who owns what and who owes or doesn't owe remuneration for it. Based on the results of that process, the consumer and industry at large can decide what can fall under the category of "innovative."

Injunctions are a great way to clear the ground for more appropriate examples of innovation.

We can put Samsung in the "not so innovative" list when it comes to the particular product in question. Done. Simple. Life goes on. Let's see what the next competitor can produce.

 

[chirpie]

sigh... the ignorance...

Not at all. The Chinese education system is currently trying to grapple with having a curriculum that does a better job of fostering creative thinking as they HAVE been heavy on the math/science/rigid memorization. (I'll leave the instrument playing out.)

There's a reason why the best and brightest in Shanghai come to the US to complete their college education in increasing numbers. They know it gives them a competitive edge.

Not to say this isn't changing as we speak, but to say it isn't true and is ignorant is... well... ignorant.

 

[*LTD*]

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.

What is it? I'll take it off your hands for a fair deal. Then you won't need to feel so ashamed. I'm here to help.

 

[rjohnstone]

What a complete load of crap.

So what's the going rate for a judge these days?
Guess I should call Apple legal... they probably have a rate card for each country.

A complete idiot can tell the difference between the two tablets.
Guess these judges have defined a new standard for idiot.