Apple Seeking Complete Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablets and Phones in EU

[Dbrown]

I assume "boils down to" alludes to some form of logical deduction which you accidentally omitted, but you're going to have to explain why a particular set of design attributes introduced by apple, strongly associated with apple products in the public eye, not imitated anywhere near as slavishly by any of Apple's other competitors, and zealously enforced by apple, will be attributed to fashion by any reasonable judge.

The samsung galaxy tab looks similar to the ipad, but so do devices that predate ipad. You dismiss the older devices because they are missing certain "ipad" design elements (eg: edge to edge glass) yet the samsung GT is missing certain design elements as well (eg: home button) and it's a copy of ipad.

How does that even make sense?

 

[BaldiMac]

The samsung galaxy tab looks similar to the ipad, but so do devices that predate ipad. You dismiss the older devices because they are missing certain "ipad" design elements (eg: edge to edge glass) yet the samsung GT is missing certain design elements as well (eg: home button) and it's a copy of ipad.

How does that even make sense?

The obvious response to your example is that the home button was not one of the registered design elements.

 

[divinox]

Actually, it does. It is trivial to establish that the design isn't generic, since (i) it was recognizably a copy of the iPhone design, and (ii) wasn't perpetuated in any of Electrovaya's subsequent models. So it comes down to distinctiveness and recognizability.

(i) Are we even sure that the iphone was the first phone to sport the glossy-glossy front? (Keypads have to be disregarded here, for obvious reasons)
(ii) Which subsequent models are you referring too?
(iii) In what way does any of this, if we assume that you are right, counter the "fashion argument"?

 

[papabanana]

(i) The iphone was not even the first phone to include edge-to-edge glass afaik.
(ii) Which subsequent models are you referring too?
(iii) In what way does any of this, if we assume that you are right, counter the "fashion argument"?

(i) point being? Recall that I was pointing out that the sc4000 was not a point in favor of Samsung's legal argument, because it was a copy of the iPhone. This is clearly (but not irrefutably, of course) true, regardless of whether the iPhone was the first phone with edge-to-edge glass.
(ii) sc4100, for example. You may also wish to look at all the prior models, since those are the ones that would bolster your argument.
(iii) you'll note that I pointed out that the "fashion argument" is an assertion, not an argument. I don't really think I have to counter it any more than I've already pointed out in a subsequent post why it isn't correct.

 

[divinox]

Actually, no, take a look at the prior and subsequent models. They don't have the design attributes of Apple's community design. One model, the SC4000, bore a remarkable resemblance to the iPhone design shortly after the iPhone came out - but the models before, and after, the Sc4000 did not.

Minus edge-to-edge glass i'd say that the SC 1213/1214 from 2003 shares the design attributes of Apples community design (i.e. it is a slate with rounded corners and a bezel).

----------

Yes - it is quite remarkable that even with only a few drawings and very sparse illustration of features, the key attributes of the iPhone /iPad design already shine through, and we can already see that the Galaxy Tab copies all the key design attributes. edge-to-edge glass with trim, simple edge design with emphasis on side-aligned audio port on one end and central data port on the other. Basically, if it's in the design, the Galaxy tab has it - and these also happen to be the key design attributes of the 10.1. At which point the sparsity of the figures becomes a feature rather than a bug from Apple's perspective.

----------



Besides edge-to-edge glass i fail to see the point. As for simple edge design, well (i) if Samsung had more ports people would still call it a copy (ii) adding ports for the sake of adding ports is plain stupid (Sammy uses a standardized port afaik, unlike Apple who uses a proprietary one).

As for the audio, would it matter if Sammy placed it in the center? If not, what difference does it make?

I forgot to respond to this - if it had come out before the iPhone had, it may have been a useful argument for Samsung. However, a judge isn't going to consider the iPad design less distinctive just because a rip-off of the iPhone design was out there at some point.

If we are allowed to go from phones to computers, why not from photo-frames (or monitors) to computers? Heck, im not even sure that the photo-frame doesnt qualify as a computer to begin with (even though we would obviously never call it that, just like we dont call a TI-8x a computer despite the fact that its e.g. programmable).

----------

(i) point being? Recall that I was pointing out that the sc4000 was not a point in favor of Samsung's legal argument, because it was a copy of the iPhone. This is clearly (but not irrefutably, of course) true, regardless of whether the iPhone was the first phone with edge-to-edge glass.
(ii) sc4100, for example. You may also wish to look at all the prior models, since those are the ones that would bolster your argument.
(iii) you'll note that I pointed out that the "fashion argument" is an assertion, not an argument. I don't really think I have to counter it any more than I've already pointed out in a subsequent post why it isn't correct.

Like previously stated i did not bring up the SC4000, i merely commented on it. As for earlier models ive posted pictures on "ipad-looking" and not-so-ipad looking Electrovaya devices already.

as for fashion, ill read up on your response and get back to you.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Didn't AidenShaw patent your biting sarcasm?

Edit: apologies to Aiden; you do generally back up what you say with some form of evidence.

What is there to back up? Apple has sued for every idiotic reason under the sun. You are certainly free to accept this as a good thing just as I am to say it is really a pathetic act by the supposed elite. Apple is creating lots of bad karma. What goes around, comes around. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[papabanana]

Minus edge-to-edge glass i'd say that the SC 1213/1214 from 2003 shares the design attributes of Apples community design (i.e. it is a slate with rounded corners and a bezel).

And, because it does not share anywhere near the set of design attributes described in the community design that the 10.1 does , the 1213/1214 will have no bearing on the strength of Samsung's argument.

----------

Besides edge-to-edge glass i fail to see the point. As for simple edge design, well (i) if Samsung had more ports people would still call it a copy (ii) adding ports for the sake of adding ports is plain stupid (Sammy uses a standardized port afaik, unlike Apple who uses a proprietary one).

As for the audio, would it matter if Sammy placed it in the center? If not, what difference does it make?

- The 10.1 IS a copy (of the trade dress, to be clear). It just happens that they were so brazen that they even copied the port locations, which makes the case easier for Apple. As I have been pointing out.
- wrt audio: it's an additional element that Apple may use to bolster it's case.

If we are allowed to go from phones to computers, why not from photo-frames (or monitors) to computers? Heck, im not even sure that the photo-frame doesnt qualify as a computer to begin with (even though we would obviously never call it that, just like we dont call a TI-8x a computer despite the fact that its e.g. programmable).

I'm not sure you're understanding the point. The legal principle that trade dress law in general is based on is that a firm's imitation of a competitor's good purely in order to deceive customers (or second-order considerations such as the consumer buying the good in order to pretend to own the competitor's good) into buying the firm's good should be deterred. We may then draw the following immediate implications from this principle, on which judgements will be based:

- photo frames are irrelevant, since there is no effect on consumer confusion in tablet purchase choice.
- prior electrovaya model that copied the iPhone design is irrelevant, since it is based on the same Apple trade dress. In other words, the electrovaya example does not render the iPad design either undistinctive or generic.

 

[divinox]

I assume "boils down to" alludes to some form of logical deduction which you accidentally omitted, but you're going to have to explain why a particular set of design attributes introduced by apple, strongly associated with apple products in the public eye, not imitated anywhere near as slavishly by any of Apple's other competitors, and zealously enforced by apple, will be attributed to fashion by any reasonable judge.

First, i'd like to state for the record (and to avoid any confusion) that the "boils down to fashion" is a reference to edge-to-edge glass (nothing more, nothing less).

Second, im not quite sure what else there is to say. A couple of years ago low-cut jeans were the bomb, now not so much. Similarly, glossy-glossy is huge in electronics atm (something i, personally, doesnt like very much - especially not when it comes to TVs). Cant think of something more glossy-glossy than edge-to-edge glass. Simply put, its tech-fashion.

As for this fashion (i.e. edge-to-edge glass) i really cant say i connect it with Apple, and especially not the iphone (or the ipad). Then, my frame of reference is probably somewhat different than the frame of others, what do i know.

Now, if Apple had been somewhat sane about this claim, targetting specific devices, with specific claims, then yes - i wouldve felt they had somewhat of a point here. However, by going as far as they currently are, in my view they have no case at all. Fashion is fashion, banning people from going with fashion (i.e. giving customers what they want) was never the intention of the law (the law is there to prevent fakes (first and foremost), not look-somewhat-alikes (as evidenced by non-conflict similarities in design in every other industry, despite registrations in these areas).

Note, by the way, that the legal principles underlying the IP of designs in the garment/accessory industry (in europe, in particular) are quite different, and more relaxed as a result

.
Afaik its the very same law, at least this is the law one would call on in Sweden to protect design (and "trademark production" of garments - i.e. the use of very specific techniques which can be said to be brand-associated).

There, because fashion designs are generally considered as innovation rather than branding, there is much more leeway for "building on" competitor's designs. This isn't the case here.

Fail to see the difference really. A leather jacket is a leather jacket. A slate is a slate. Sure, there are many different looks to achieve, but there will almost certainly be one that is in fashion, and tons of people pushing that very look at the same time (despite who came out with it first, if one can even speak of such a thing). To me, edge-to-edge glass (the design aspect of it*) is just like a leather jacket.

* As earlier mentioned there is a functionality aspect to edge-to-edge glass (capacitive buttons, gestures etc.). With this in mind, Apple certainly shouldnt be allowed to block others from offering this functionality to end-users.

I'm not sure what set of legal/philosophical principles you're arguing on the basis of, but none that make sense come to mind. We already understand the motivations behind the laws underlying trade dress, and Apple is quite justified (with respect to Samsung specifically) under those principles to pursue those damages. Note that I'm not talking here about whether Apple has a strong legal case, but whether Samsung tried to "cheat" by imitating Apple products and whether Apple is justifiably upset at this cheating - and I think it's quite clear, regardless of the strength of apple's legal case, that Apple is in the right here.



Actually, no. That is why I used "for example" here.

See above. If this was only on that very device (or those select few - heck, ive already stated that i found that galaxy-whatever phone to be silly), then yes - i'd say they might have a case (depending on Sammys defense, that is). However, they are pushing it way further than that, trying to ban all form of competition. That, too me is going well beyond what they reasonably can claim as "their own".

 

[Oletros]

- The 10.1 IS a copy (of the trade dress, to be clear). It just happens that they were so brazen that they even copied the port locations, which makes the case easier for Apple. As I have been pointing out.

This "IS" in capitals means that there is a court veredict?

How they copied the port locations? Was the first time Samsung put audio on one side and data/charging port in the other?

No one has done that before?

 

[papabanana]

First, i'd like to state for the record (and to avoid any confusion) that the "boils down to fashion" is a reference to edge-to-edge glass (nothing more, nothing less).

Second, im not quite sure what else there is to say. A couple of years ago low-cut jeans were the bomb, now not so much. Similarly, glossy-glossy is huge in electronics atm (something i, personally, doesnt like very much - especially not when it comes to TVs). Cant think of something more glossy-glossy than edge-to-edge glass. Simply put, its tech-fashion.

As for this fashion (i.e. edge-to-edge glass) i really cant say i connect it with Apple, and especially not the iphone (or the ipad). Then, my frame of reference is probably somewhat different than the frame of others, what do i know.

Now, if Apple had been somewhat sane about this claim, targetting specific devices, with specific claims, then yes - i wouldve felt they had somewhat of a point here. However, by going as far as they currently are, in my view they have no case at all. Fashion is fashion, banning people from going with fashion (i.e. giving customers what they want) was never the intention of the law (the law is there to prevent fakes (first and foremost), not look-somewhat-alikes (as evidenced by non-conflict similarities in design in every other industry, despite registrations in these areas).

.
Afaik its the very same law, at least this is the law one would call on in Sweden to protect design (and "trademark production" of garments - i.e. the use of very specific techniques which can be said to be brand-associated).


Fail to see the difference really. A leather jacket is a leather jacket. A slate is a slate. Sure, there are many different looks to achieve, but there will almost certainly be one that is in fashion, and tons of people pushing that very look at the same time (despite who came out with it first, if one can even speak of such a thing). To me, edge-to-edge glass (the design aspect of it*) is just like a leather jacket.

* As earlier mentioned there is a functionality aspect to edge-to-edge glass (capacitive buttons, gestures etc.). With this in mind, Apple certainly shouldnt be allowed to block others from offering this functionality to end-users.



See above. If this was only on that very device (or those select few - heck, ive already stated that i found that galaxy-whatever phone to be silly), then yes - i'd say they might have a case (depending on Sammys defense, that is). However, they are pushing it way further than that, trying to ban all form of competition. That, too me is going well beyond what they reasonably can claim as "their own".

I'm not going to make a point-by-point response - you seem to be confused about how IP law "works", so it would only add to the confusion to engage in your arguments.

However, I'll make the following useful point, which hopefully should point you in the right direction.

Why is imitation of design allowed to a far greater extent in haute couture than in, say, tech products? The reason is that, in clothes and handbags, innovation is in design, and innovation in design proceeds at an exceedingly rapid pace. Consequently, excessive protection of designs would stifle the main area of innovation in the fashion industries, and design is left relatively unprotected at the cost of socially excessive imitation.

In tech products, design in the sense of trade dress isn't where innovation takes place; rather, innovation is in terms of technical advancements. Thus allowing trade dress imitation principally would result in rent-seeking where competitors seek to profit off the reputation of other products (exactly what is happening here), without any useful innovation arising from the relaxation of IP restrictions. Consequently, trade dress is more strongly protected in the non-fashion industries, as is the case here.

----------

This "IS" in capitals means that there is a court veredict?

um, no. Have you been reading the thread?

How they copied the port locations? Was the first time Samsung put audio on one side and data/charging port in the other?

No one has done that before?

I suggest you understand the argument before jumping into the deep end.

 

[BaldiMac]

First, i'd like to state for the record (and to avoid any confusion) that the "boils down to fashion" is a reference to edge-to-edge glass (nothing more, nothing less).

Second, im not quite sure what else there is to say. A couple of years ago low-cut jeans were the bomb, now not so much. Similarly, glossy-glossy is huge in electronics atm (something i, personally, doesnt like very much - especially not when it comes to TVs). Cant think of something more glossy-glossy than edge-to-edge glass. Simply put, its tech-fashion.

As for this fashion (i.e. edge-to-edge glass) i really cant say i connect it with Apple, and especially not the iphone (or the ipad). Then, my frame of reference is probably somewhat different than the frame of others, what do i know.

Now, if Apple had been somewhat sane about this claim, targetting specific devices, with specific claims, then yes - i wouldve felt they had somewhat of a point here. However, by going as far as they currently are, in my view they have no case at all. Fashion is fashion, banning people from going with fashion (i.e. giving customers what they want) was never the intention of the law (the law is there to prevent fakes (first and foremost), not look-somewhat-alikes (as evidenced by non-conflict similarities in design in every other industry, despite registrations in these areas).

.
Afaik its the very same law, at least this is the law one would call on in Sweden to protect design (and "trademark production" of garments - i.e. the use of very specific techniques which can be said to be brand-associated).


Fail to see the difference really. A leather jacket is a leather jacket. A slate is a slate. Sure, there are many different looks to achieve, but there will almost certainly be one that is in fashion, and tons of people pushing that very look at the same time (despite who came out with it first, if one can even speak of such a thing). To me, edge-to-edge glass (the design aspect of it*) is just like a leather jacket.

* As earlier mentioned there is a functionality aspect to edge-to-edge glass (capacitive buttons, gestures etc.). With this in mind, Apple certainly shouldnt be allowed to block others from offering this functionality to end-users.



See above. If this was only on that very device (or those select few - heck, ive already stated that i found that galaxy-whatever phone to be silly), then yes - i'd say they might have a case (depending on Sammys defense, that is). However, they are pushing it way further than that, trying to ban all form of competition. That, too me is going well beyond what they reasonably can claim as "their own".

It isn't about any one design element. Apple isn't trying to stop anyone from using edge to edge glass on its own.

Here is the list that has been reported on design elements that Apple considers unique to their products:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.

(This list is based on published reports and may not be exhaustive.)

If a product doesn't have all (or in some circumstance, most) of these features, it is not covered by this registration.

 

[divinox]

And, because it does not share anywhere near the set of design attributes described in the community design that the 10.1 does , the 1213/1214 will have no bearing on the strength of Samsung's argument.

Once again, pictures were first and foremost posted to end the "before ipad/after ipad"-nonsense. As for "set of design attributes" id say it shares virtually all, bar one. Question then becomes, is this one element (that the tab can be said to share) something one actor should have exclusive right to? My answer: No.

- The 10.1 IS a copy (of the trade dress, to be clear). It just happens that they were so brazen that they even copied the port locations, which makes the case easier for Apple. As I have been pointing out.
- wrt audio: it's an additional element that Apple may use to bolster it's case.

I disagree; that Galaxy phone they pushed on the other hand, now thats debatable for sure. As for port locations, well.. the bottom one is old as **** (my SE w810 had it there for example, and that surely wasnt the first one). As for the headphone one, that is somewhat different. To be honest, it never really made sense to me, not even on the phone. Might be a technical reason for the top-based location though that i am not aware of.


I'm not sure you're understanding the point. The legal principle that trade dress law in general is based on is that a firm's imitation of a competitor's good purely in order to deceive customers (or second-order considerations such as the consumer buying the good in order to pretend to own the competitor's good) into buying the firm's good should be deterred. We may then draw the following immediate implications from this principle, on which judgements will be based:

- photo frames are irrelevant, since there is no effect on consumer confusion in tablet purchase choice.
- prior electrovaya model that copied the iPhone design is irrelevant, since it is based on the same Apple trade dress. In other words, the electrovaya example does not render the iPad design either undistinctive or generic.[/QUOTE]

if so, why is not phones irrelevant? why does a phone have a bigger effect on consumer confusion per definition? if you had made a claim to the popularity of the device, i wouldve granted you a point, but this - no.

what Samsung can show with the frame however (probably along with various forms of display) is that the overall design language (do you say design language in english?) predates the iphone.

Im not talking about prior EV models that copy the iphone design. im talking about slates from 2003 like 1230/1240,

(not to mention the Sahara ones from 2004 (or earlier) and the pbj touch slate from 2005 (or earlier)).

 

[Oletros]

um, no. Have you been reading the thread?

Yes, I I have read it. So, is only your opinion and not a fact.

I suggest you understand the argument before jumping into the deep end.

Can you enlighten me then?

 

[papabanana]

if so, why is not phones irrelevant? why does a phone have a bigger effect on consumer confusion per definition? if you had made a claim to the popularity of the device, i wouldve granted you a point, but this - no.

what Samsung can show with the frame however (probably along with various forms of display) is that the overall design language (do you say design language in english?) predates the iphone.

Because phones have relevance only to the extent that they demonstrate that the electrovaya model was not evidence of genericity of the Apple community design; they have no direct relevance to the consumer confusion argument.

Be careful with analogical reasoning here; the argument regarding the Samsung photo frame and the argument regarding the electrovaya/iphone have completely different structure.

Im not talking about prior EV models that copy the iphone design. im talking about slates from 2003 like 1230/1240,
Image

(not to mention the Sahara ones from 2004 (or earlier) and the pbj touch slate from 2005 (or earlier)).

None of these are close to the degree of similarity between the 10.1 and the iPad.

----------

Yes, I I have read it. So, is only your opinion and not a fact.

of course it is only my opinion. Which is why I'm asking whether you'd actually read the thread - I'd already stated so previously.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It isn't about any one design element. Apple isn't trying to stop anyone from using edge to edge glass on its own.

Here is the list that has been reported on design elements that Apple considers unique to their products:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.

(This list is based on published reports and may not be exhaustive.)

If a product doesn't have all (or in some circumstance, most) of these features, it is not covered by this registration.

And of that entire list the only one that I would say holds any water and even then it is weak at best is the metal frame. Everything else is well crap.

 

[Oletros]

And of that entire list the only one that I would say holds any water and even then it is weak at best is the metal frame. Everything else is well crap.

Does the XOOM have a metal frame?

 

[BaldiMac]

And of that entire list the only one that I would say holds any water and even then it is weak at best is the metal frame. Everything else is well crap.

And that doesn't matter. It's not about the features separately. It's about the combination of design elements.

 

[divinox]

I'm not going to make a point-by-point response - you seem to be confused about how IP law "works", so it would only add to the confusion to engage in your arguments.

Like stated i have actually followed up on some prejudi-whatever its called (prejudicerande domar (swe)) on the matter of design registrations (mönsterskydd (swe)). Why? Im a weird guy, i start reading things and i get sucked into it. Ill admit that it was a few years ago, but i did learn a bit or two about how "design registrations".

What is your background in EU design registration law? What is your comment on a quote by a Swedish patents-right professor (professor being the highest ranking one can achieve in the swedish academic system) stating that the injunction is pretty much unprecedented.

Det är väldigt ovanligt att en domstol fattar ett sådant här ex parte-beslut (bara en part representerad). Då ska den klagande ha väldigt starkt på fötterna och det brukar bara användas när det är uppenbara intrång och motparten är rena pirater som misstänks kunna undanhålla bevis. Det kan knappast sägas om Samsung, vilket gör det hela märkligt, säger Bengt Domeij, professor i Uppsala och KTH och expert på patenträtt.​

It is very unusual that a court makes an ex-part decision like this (only one part represented). When so happens, the complainant should have a very strong case, and it is generally just used for obvious infringements when the defendent are pure pirates that can be suspected of withholding evidence. That could hardly be said about Samsung, which makes the whole thing strange, says Bengt Domeij, professor at Uppsala and KTH and expert on patent-rights.​

However, I'll make the following useful point, which hopefully should point you in the right direction.

How graceful of you.

Why is imitation of design allowed to a far greater extent in haute couture than in, say, tech products?

What empirical data do you have to back the claim in first place? Like stated, this is pretty much unprecedented, and ive surely seen similar-looking devices before - heck, i guess i still do on a daily basis.

The reason is that, in clothes and handbags, innovation is in design, and innovation in design proceeds at an exceedingly rapid pace.

Really not following you here. First, the argument was never on high-fashion, second what other than "in fashion there are trends" really applies to the discussion? There are trends in tech too (e.g. the glossy-glossy trend that i despise).

Consequently, excessive protection of designs would stifle the main area of innovation in the fashion industries, and design is left relatively unprotected at the cost of socially excessive imitation.

Even so, designs are highly protected, just not generic ones.

In tech products, design in the sense of trade dress isn't where innovation takes place; rather, innovation is in terms of technical advancements.

Ignoring that tech. in the end is (often) intended for the consumer market, in which fashion is a key element. This is evidenced by the mere fact that these trends exist.

Thus allowing trade dress imitation principally would result in rent-seeking where competitors seek to profit off the reputation of other products (exactly what is happening here), without any useful innovation arising from the relaxation of IP restrictions. Consequently, trade dress is more strongly protected in the non-fashion industries, as is the case here.

commented on.
----------



um, no. Have you been reading the thread?



I suggest you understand the argument before jumping into the deep end.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rodimus Prime]

And that doesn't matter. It's not about the features separately. It's about the combination of design elements.

then from that point the entire thing is very weak at best. When factor all together it is pretty poor of a case and plenty of prior examples that show the case is weak.

 

[divinox]

It isn't about any one design element. Apple isn't trying to stop anyone from using edge to edge glass on its own.

Here is the list that has been reported on design elements that Apple considers unique to their products:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.

(This list is based on published reports and may not be exhaustive.)

If a product doesn't have all (or in some circumstance, most) of these features, it is not covered by this registration.

- Rectangular products with four evenly rounded corners were pushed to the market before the ipad, the iphone and the design registration.

- from the pictures its hard to judge, but i'd say this is similar to the point above.

- no idea if any prior devices had metal frames, they did however have frames. regardless, id place this under fashion. If its trendy to have chrome rims, devices will have chrome rims. If they need be black, they will be black, and so on.

- centered displays surely existed (and yes, at rectangular, rounded corner products with rims too).

- same goes for neutral margin (this margin is quite necessary from a usability perspective).

- pretty much all computers run the desktop (wimp) metaphor, the desktop metaphor predates Apple as a corporation.

We can safely state that there were pads ticking all boxes here, with the debatable exception of (i) metal rim, (ii) edge-to-edge glass. This is Apples case, no more no less.

 

[BaldiMac]

then from that point the entire thing is very weak at best.

Okay? Do you have any basis for this opinion?

When factor all together it is pretty poor of a case and plenty of prior examples that show the case is weak.

And, amazingly, we've gone this whole thread with dozens of examples of prior art. None of them contained all of these design elements prior to the release of the iPhone, let alone the registration of the design elements in 2004.

- Rectangular products with four evenly rounded corners were pushed to the market before the ipad, the iphone and the design registration.

- from the pictures its hard to judge, but i'd say this is similar to the point above.

- no idea if any prior devices had metal frames, they did however have frames. regardless, id place this under fashion. If its trendy to have chrome rims, devices will have chrome rims. If they need be black, they will be black, and so on.

- centered displays surely existed (and yes, at rectangular, rounded corner products with rims too).

- same goes for neutral margin (this margin is quite necessary from a usability perspective).

- pretty much all computers run the desktop (wimp) metaphor, the desktop metaphor predates Apple as a corporation.

We can safely state that there were pads ticking all boxes here, with the debatable exception of (i) metal rim, (ii) edge-to-edge glass. This is Apples case, no more no less.

Again, the fact that there is prior art for the individual design elements separately is irrelevant. The design registration is for all of the elements together (or most of them in some cases). Why is this hard?

 

[divinox]

One thing i dont get after reading this thread is the following:

Apple took a generic design and added 1, or 2, things, these things themselves being generic (metal rim), (edge-to-edge glass). Apples design then became "unique".

If we are to follow this argument, why cant I (or Samsung for that matter) take Apples design, add 1 (or 2) (generic) things (e.g. white plastic back) and claim the same uniqueness?

Arent the actions the same? Why is the former different?


edit: What if they add Touch of Color™, will that make it unique?

----------

Again, the fact that there is prior art for the individual design elements separately is irrelevant. The design registration is for all of the elements together (or most of them in some cases). Why is this hard?

Like stated all of the boxes are ticked in single devices, with the possible exception of "metal rim", and "edge to edge glass". Why is this hard?

Also, see post above. I'd really like an answer.

 

[papabanana]

What is your background in EU design registration law? What is your comment on a quote by a Swedish patents-right professor (professor being the highest ranking one can achieve in the swedish academic system) stating that the injunction is pretty much unprecedented.

I'd prefer not to say anything about my background in IP law. You can choose to judge what I know based on what I write.

It is very unusual that a court makes an ex-part decision like this (only one part represented). When so happens, the complainant should have a very strong case, and it is generally just used for obvious infringements when the defendent are pure pirates that can be suspected of withholding evidence. That could hardly be said about Samsung, which makes the whole thing strange, says Bengt Domeij, professor at Uppsala and KTH and expert on patent-rights.​

Sounds like a reasonable opinion, albeit one that I disagree with. Any reason why you're quoting it?

What empirical data do you have to back the claim in first place? Like stated, this is pretty much unprecedented, and ive surely seen similar-looking devices before - heck, i guess i still do on a daily basis.

You're confusing a general point with a specific claim about this case. I'm not saying that a direct implication of the difference in the application of trade dress law to different industries is that apple will win vs. samsung. I'm just pointing out how your analogies to design of clothing is flawed, and giving some hints about how to think about these issues in general.

Really not following you here. First, the argument was never on high-fashion, second what other than "in fashion there are trends" really applies to the discussion? There are trends in tech too (e.g. the glossy-glossy trend that i despise).

Again - beyond the educational aspect of the post, I'm trying to point out why your intuitions about designs and rights over designs are flawed. That should be a starting point for re-evaluating how to think about these issues.

Even so, designs are highly protected, just not generic ones.

Ignoring that tech. in the end is (often) intended for the consumer market, in which fashion is a key element. This is evidenced by the mere fact that these trends exist.

It sounds like you really don't understand what I'm trying to explain. Perhaps there is a language barrier here?

 

[BaldiMac]

One thing i dont get after reading this thread is the following:

Apple took a generic design and added 1, or 2, things, these things themselves being generic (metal rim), (edge-to-edge glass). Apples design then became "unique".

If we are to follow this argument, why cant I (or Samsung for that matter) take Apples design, add 1 (or 2) (generic) things (e.g. white plastic back) and claim the same uniqueness?

Arent the actions the same? Why is the former different?

Because Apple took generic design element and combined them into something that it considers unique. Samsung took what Apple registered as unique and added a few things to it.

Like stated all of the boxes are ticked in single devices, with the possible exception of "metal rim", and "edge to edge glass". Why is this hard?

When you add "possible exceptions", then you are really saying that all of the design elements are not present in any one example of prior art which would seem to confirm that Apple's design is unique.

 

[papabanana]

One thing i dont get after reading this thread is the following:

Apple took a generic design and added 1, or 2, things, these things themselves being generic (metal rim), (edge-to-edge glass). Apples design then became "unique".

If we are to follow this argument, why cant I (or Samsung for that matter) take Apples design, add 1 (or 2) (generic) things (e.g. white plastic back) and claim the same uniqueness?

Arent the actions the same? Why is the former different?


edit: What if they add Touch of Color™, will that make it unique?
Image
----------



Like stated all of the boxes are ticked in single devices, with the possible exception of "metal rim", and "edge to edge glass". Why is this hard?

Also, see post above. I'd really like an answer.

I think it's been pointed out at least five times, by multiple posters, that it is the entirety of the design that matters, not the marginal contribution of specific elements. For example, you tried to give examples of tablets that were missing only a few of these elements - but shorn of one or two of these elements, they turned out to be completely dissimilar to the iPad (which was why I pointed out that these were examples FOR, not against, Apple's case).

Samsung can try to change the design with one or two elements. Whether it will then add up to a distinctive, recognizable design (as in the case of Apple) will then become a matter of judgement, and potentially of legal dispute. In this particular case, before a legal judgement is passed, my opinion is that Apple's design clearly passed the test - thanks partly to the evidence you have exhibited so far.