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

[divinox]

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?

Since you doubted my background, i thought you'd perhaps be interested in a professional opinion. After all, i think its safe to assume that a professor with expertise on patent-right should know a thing or two about ip, right?

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.

So you have no such evidence. Why not just state that then? Second, if handbags doesnt cut it, lets talk about cars, lets look at the trend of window-chroming, or use of rough plastic...

Very trendy.

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.

My 'intuitions' are based on the supreme court rulings i've read in the past. That is my only frame of reference here. That and common sense of course (which unfortunately applies far to seldomly when it comes to these things, ill give you that)

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

Doubt it, if anything i'd blame the medium. Its quite ****** once you reach a certain point of complexity (and on top have to deal with parallel threads on virtually the same topic). It, unfortunately, only gets you so far. In times like these you usually have to just call it stop, and if anything start from the beginning focusing on one single point.

----------

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.

If it is the totality, then why cannot Samsung do what Apple did; i.e. build further on the generic? Compared to the (original) generic wouldnt that "as such" (i.e., based on this reasoning) make it even more unique and special (a position i personally reject).

Second, calling them "completely dissimilar" when they do in fact share most attributes is quite silly. not completely similar is way closer to the truth here.

Third, i really did not try to "give examples of whatever you said". Like stated so many times before i posted the pictures to cut the "before ipad/after ipad"-nonsense. As far as i know i never made the claim that there were anything identical to the ipad before its launch, then again, i wouldnt say that the xoom or the tab is identical to the ipad either.

Fourth, there is no ruling that Apple have a "distinctive, recognizable" design. Similarly, there is no ruling that Samsungs offering is not different enough to be allowed regardless. Lets stick to the facts here, shall we? (Yes, you do state that this is your opinion, but its written as fact nonetheless).

 

[adder7712]

Think this is re galaxy tab. it happened.


http://www.osnews.com/story/25065/Apple_Tampered_with_Evidence_in_German_Apple_v_Samsung_Case

Image

EU version of Tab has Samsung logo on it. Apple's lawyers presented images (part of EVIDENCE in court) that doesn't show Samsung logo, thanks to some quick photoshopping. Don't lawyers get disbarred for tampering with evidence?

They had to use app drawer right?

Seriously, I'm rather disappointed with the company I love.

 

[papabanana]

Since you doubted my background, i thought you'd perhaps be interested in a professional opinion. After all, i think its safe to assume that a professor with expertise on patent-right should know a thing or two about ip, right?

yes, and nothing you quoted from the prof seems to contradict any assertion of mine. I didn't doubt your background - I know IP lawyers who have a more tenuous grasp on these issues than you do. I'm just claiming that you don't understand enough to make a reasoned judgement on this issue, not that you are ignorant at an absolute level.

So you have no such evidence. Why not just state that then?

Empirical evidence about the claim that trade dress is less highly protected in fashion industries than elsewhere? You do realize that the variable at issue is not quantifiable, right?

Second, if handbags doesnt cut it, lets talk about cars, lets look at the trend of window-chroming, or use of rough plastic...
Image
Image

Very trendy.

Not sure what your point is here, sorry. As I said, I assume you're misunderstanding my point.

My 'intuitions' are based on the supreme court rulings i've read in the past. That is my only frame of reference here. That and common sense of course (which unfortunately applies far to seldomly when it comes to these things, ill give you that)



Doubt it, if anything i'd blame the medium. Its quite ****** once you reach a certain point of complexity (and on top have to deal with parallel threads on virtually the same topic). It, unfortunately, only gets you so far. In times like these you usually have to just call it stop, and if anything start from the beginning focusing on one single point.

----------

If it is the totality, then why cannot Samsung do what Apple did; i.e. build further on the generic? Compared to the (original) generic wouldnt that "as such" (i.e., based on this reasoning) make it even more unique and special (a position i personally reject).

read the post you just quoted. Whether a design is distinctive is a matter or judgement (and eventually of legal judgement). If samsung added a "white back" or "touch of color" element, it would probably fail both tests. If it added a garish floral design over the front, I would guess it would pass.

Second, calling them "completely dissimilar" when they do in fact share most attributes is quite silly. not completely similar is way closer to the truth here.

It should be clear that complete dissimilar refers here to a comparison where the products can be easily distinguished. The subjective claim I'm making here, which I assume you agree with, is that it is far easier to distinguish the iPad from these other examples, while it is far harder to distinguish the iPad from the 10.1.

Third, i really did not try to "give examples of whatever you said". Like stated so many times before i posted the pictures to cut the "before ipad/after ipad"-nonsense. As far as i know i never made the claim that there were anything identical to the ipad before its launch, then again, i wouldnt say that the xoom or the tab is identical to the ipad either.

Fourth, there is no ruling that Apple have a "distinctive, recognizable" design. Similarly, there is no ruling that Samsungs offering is not different enough to be allowed regardless. Lets stick to the facts here, shall we? (Yes, you do state that this is your opinion, but its written as fact nonetheless).

Well then, wait until someone states it as fact before making this snide comment.

 

[divinox]

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.

So if Samsung considers their design unique they are home free? You realize that that is exactly what you are stating here. What Apple considers unique or not has no value here.

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.

When i add "possible exceptions" i acknowledge the fact that i have not seen all slates ever produced. There may, or may not be, such slates in the history of the tablet.

(p.s. when it comes to slates (i.e. not phones) there are examples with the edge-to-edge glass. of course, your argument is (probably) that the ipad is just an iphone but if we allow for the inclusion of phones, why stop there? further, are phones treated as the same product category as tablets in the design registrations? if not, does that argument hold?

My take? The latter is irrelevant. Why i think so is something i made clear to you the other day. However, as Apples claim goes beyond the specific well in to the generic i still hold the position that they - in this matter - have no case (with regards to that single galaxy phone i saw the other year i'd say they had somewhat of a case, other than that not so much). Their fall here will, as i see it, be that they claimed too much; their claim became to generic.

(something made even worse by the - already stated - fact that edge-to-edge glass (can) serve a functional purpose, necessary for technological progression and fair competition).

 

[divinox]

yes, and nothing you quoted from the prof seems to contradict any assertion of mine. I didn't doubt your background - I know IP lawyers who have a more tenuous grasp on these issues than you do. I'm just claiming that you don't understand enough to make a reasoned judgement on this issue, not that you are ignorant at an absolute level.

Other than the fact that he found the whole thing very odd, where as you seem to find it very natural.

Empirical evidence about the claim that trade dress is less highly protected in fashion industries than elsewhere? You do realize that the variable at issue is not quantifiable, right?

Did i exclude you from sharing qualitative evidence? :- )

Not sure what your point is here, sorry. As I said, I assume you're misunderstanding my point.

Since you found fashion (as in clothes etc.) to be non-analogous i picked something closer to what we are discussing here, cars. As for the pictures, they aimed to show how a trend (set by Volvo in their XC-line) got copied by SAAB (in their XC-line, yes - they even name it the same, shocker huh?).

read the post you just quoted. Whether a design is distinctive is a matter or judgement (and eventually of legal judgement). If samsung added a "white back" or "touch of color" element, it would probably fail both tests. If it added a garish floral design over the front, I would guess it would pass.

Why is "touch of color" less distinctive than a metal rim, or edge-to-edge glass? In fact, when it comes to the former you'd have to look really hard to find any prior art at all. Really not following your reasoning here. Care to expand?

It should be clear that complete dissimilar refers here to a comparison where the products can be easily distinguished.

which is not a binary thing, but a continuum. Clearly, competing designs are allowed to be similar, the question here is how similar can one be without being considered a mere copy.

The subjective claim I'm making here, which I assume you agree with, is that it is far easier to distinguish the iPad from these other examples, while it is far harder to distinguish the iPad from the 10.1.

As far as my examples goes, yes (the SC4000 is somewhat close i guess, at least as far as the front goes). However, I do not find the tab, or the xoom, hard to distinguish from the ipad either. So yes, on the continuum they are arguably closer to the ipad, but are they close enough? I think not (e.g., if we look at the sammy it has different dimensions, a different aspect-ratio, a big Samsung logo, a different back. I think these elements, taken together, make it distinct "enough" from the ipad).

Well then, wait until someone states it as fact before making this snide comment.

"as is the case with..." is pretty much stating something as a fact. If you think about it im sure you can agree with me on that.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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.



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.

Since you seem so sure Apple is going to win.
What are you going to say when the judge removes the band and Apple loses?

 

[BaldiMac]

So if Samsung considers their design unique they are home free? You realize that that is exactly what you are stating here. What Apple considers unique or not has no value here.

That's not even close to what I'm stating. Apple registered their design. If the court agrees that it is unique enough to constitute trade dress, then Samsung cannot use all (or possibly most) of those elements in their device. Simply adding more design elements is irrelevant if the protected elements are present.

When i add "possible exceptions" i acknowledge the fact that i have not seen all slates ever produced. There may, or may not be, such slates in the history of the tablet.

(p.s. when it comes to slates (i.e. not phones) there are examples with the edge-to-edge glass. of course, your argument is (probably) that the ipad is just an iphone but if we allow for the inclusion of phones, why stop there? further, are phones treated as the same product category as tablets in the design registrations? if not, does that argument hold?

My take? The latter is irrelevant. Why i think so is something i made clear to you the other day. However, as Apples claim goes beyond the specific well in to the generic i still hold the position that they - in this matter - have no case (with regards to that single galaxy phone i saw the other year i'd say they had somewhat of a case, other than that not so much). Their fall here will, as i see it, be that they claimed too much; their claim became to generic.

(something made even worse by the - already stated - fact that edge-to-edge glass (can) serve a functional purpose, necessary for technological progression and fair competition).

How could it be generic if out of dozens of examples you have provided, none of them match the claims in their entirety prior to the registration? If the design were generic, there would necessarily be popular examples.

If you are simply referring to the individual design elements as generic, then you are missing the point. All designs are made of generic elements. It's the way they are combined that makes them unique.

 

[BaldiMac]

Since you seem so sure Apple is going to win.
What are you going to say when the judge removes the band and Apple loses?

I've stated several times that I hope Apple loses this claim based on the information that has been reported. Doesn't change the legal issues being discussed. Can you please stop with your "everyone that disagrees with me is a blind fanboy" crap?

The question is whether or not an EU judge interprets Apple's claim as being worthy of protection under EU standards. I don't know enough about EU law to know if Apple's claim is valid. It's certainly not an obvious win for Samsung. If the judge considers Apple's registration as worthy of trade dress protection, than Samsung obviously infringes based on what has been reported.

Regardless of the legal questions, I think it is obvious that Samsung copied Apple's design as closely as they thought they could get away with. Apple thinks they went too far. I just don't think it matters enough to ban Samsung's products. A perfectly normal disagreement to be adjudicated in a court of law. You don't have to be evil to ask a court to resolve a dispute. That's why we have civil courts.

 

[divinox]

That's not even close to what I'm stating. Apple registered their design. If the court agrees that it is unique enough to constitute trade dress, then Samsung cannot use all (or possibly most) of those elements in their device. Simply adding more design elements is irrelevant if the protected elements are present.

Ok, Sammy considers their design unique + pays fee. Is that it? Second, you do realize that you don't even need a design registration to have a case when you are being copied right? It helps of course, but its not a requirement - at least not where i am based. Thus, we're back on square one. Somehow i dont get this equation...

Generic A + generic B = generic
Generic A + generic B + generic C = Unique (Apple)
Generic A + generic B + generic C + generic D = Not unique ("Sammy").

The only differentiating factor here seems to be that one design is made by Apple, and others are not. Why is Apple allowed to build on the design of "pear inc.", if Sammy is not allowed to build on the design of Apple? I really don't get it. Had Apples design been truly something 'special' and 'revolutionary', then sure, but now - as shown - it boils down to adding edge-to-edge glass (generic) and slamming on a metal rim (generic).

How could it be generic if out of dozens of examples you have provided, none of them match the claims in their entirety prior to the registration? If the design were generic, there would necessarily be popular examples.

Because Apple is not the first actor to add these (generic) design elements to differentiate a product. Its really as silly as claiming that no one else is allowed to use an aluminum back, or red bezel (while it is perfectly ok to steal other design components in doing so, i might add).

If you are simply referring to the individual design elements as generic, then you are missing the point. All designs are made of generic elements. It's the way they are combined that makes them unique.

And adding one more factor to differentiate would create an equally unique package. If Apple made something unique by merely adding salt to porridge, then its equally unique to add jam to salty porridge; after all, its the totality that makes something unique, right?

The question you (and others) need to answer here is: Why is "porridge" not considered as unique (i.e. possible - and OK - to make something unique out of by adding something generic), while "salty porridge is considered as unique (i.e. impossible - and not OK - to make something unique out of by adding something generic). What makes these cases fundamentally different?

 

[kdarling]

The EU case would be more understandable to the common observer if the design registration actually had a Home button and other iPad specific features, instead of being as generic as a picture frame:

The US design patent drawings for the iPad contain the details of the actual product:


At least a US design patent is reviewed before being granted. The EU design registration is not.

 

[divinox]

The EU case would be more impressive if that design registration actually had a Home button and other iPad specific features, instead of being so generic.
View attachment 299808
The US design patent drawings for the iPad contain the details of the actual product.
View attachment 299809

Of course, a US design patent is reviewed before being granted. The EU design registration is not.

Similarly to the iphone registration (see below) i'd expect them to have used incremental filings. But yes, i totally agree. For example, i have no problem calling ipad-looking devices with the square home key etc fakes. Even if dimensions are off they are clearly just that. Fakes.

Some more registrations:

And:

 

[divinox]

And:

Etc…


(This is really just bogus acting from Apple in my opinion).

That one is quite funny for someone familiar with the Kinect…

 

[BaldiMac]

Ok, Sammy considers their design unique + pays fee. Is that it?

Not if Apple's claim is found to qualify for trade dress protection.

Second, you do realize that you don't even need a design registration to have a case when you are being copied right? It helps of course, but its not a requirement - at least not where i am based.

Okay. Not sure if that applies in the EU or not. Not sure why that is relevant.

Thus, we're back on square one. Somehow i dont get this equation...

Generic A + generic B = generic
Generic A + generic B + generic C = Unique (Apple)
Generic A + generic B + generic C + generic D = Not unique ("Sammy").

If Apple's claim is upheld, then "Generic A + generic B + generic C" becomes protected. Simply adding another element "generic D" does not absolve you from infringing on Apple's trade dress.

The only differentiating factor here seems to be that one design is made by Apple, and others are not. Why is Apple allowed to build on the design of "pear inc.", if Sammy is not allowed to build on the design of Apple? I really don't get it. Had Apples design been truly something 'special' and 'revolutionary', then sure, but now - as shown - it boils down to adding edge-to-edge glass (generic) and slamming on a metal rim (generic).

Again, all designs are made up of generic elements. I'm not sure why you keep dismissing this fact. The fact that Apple's design is made up of generic elements does not mean it is not "special". The fact that you have shown that no one else has used the entirety of the design before Apple's registration is evidence that it is actually "special".

Because Apple is not the first actor to add these (generic) design elements to differentiate a product. Its really as silly as claiming that no one else is allowed to use an aluminum back, or red bezel (while it is perfectly ok to steal other design components in doing so, i might add).

Why do you keep coming back to this? It doesn't matter if the individual elements were used before. It is the entirety of the design that is considered.

And adding one more factor to differentiate would create an equally unique package. If Apple made something unique by merely adding salt to porridge, then its equally unique to add jam to salty porridge; after all, its the totality that makes something unique, right?

The question you (and others) need to answer here is: Why is "porridge" not considered as unique (i.e. possible - and OK - to make something unique out of by adding something generic), while "salty porridge is considered as unique (i.e. impossible - and not OK - to make something unique out of by adding something generic). What makes these cases fundamentally different?

The obvious answer would be that no one has applied for trade dress protection for your "porridge", probably because they didn't think it was unique enough to qualify. Obviously, there is a line at which a design becomes worthy of protection. Simply a rectangular shape for a tablet isn't going to qualify for protection. That's why we have judges. They will consider EU law and precedent to determine if Apple's claims meet a standard.

 

[divinox]

Not if Apple's claim is found to qualify for trade dress protection.

What if they both are?

Okay. Not sure if that applies in the EU or not. Not sure why that is relevant.

If it wasnt obvious i live in the EU.

If Apple's claim is upheld, then "Generic A + generic B + generic C" becomes protected. Simply adding another element "generic D" does not absolve you from infringing on Apple's trade dress.

What makes the two mutually exclusive? Why cant both be considered unique in the eyes of the (retarded) law? (Yes, that may seem completely counter-intuitive, but its really not).

However, i was asking YOU. You never - ever - said, IF A holds then Y. You just said Y. What you just stated is somewhat retarded to state, as its a tautology; i.e. "if the court finds it unique, and not allowed to build on, it is considered (by the authority as) unique and not allowed to build on". No ****, ey?

Again, all designs are made up of generic elements. I'm not sure why you keep dismissing this fact. The fact that Apple's design is made up of generic elements does not mean it is not "special". The fact that you have shown that no one else has used the entirety of the design before Apple's registration is evidence that it is actually "special".

Nor does it mean that its special. Like earlier stated we're dealing with a continuum here. As such, it is not sufficient to point at Apples inclusion of X into design set Y and say - behold, its unique! If so, the inclusion of Z into X+Y would also be unique. Rather, the inclusion of X into design set Y MAY create something unique. Similarly, the inclusion of Z into (the now unique) X+Y may create something unique.

Ergo: Just pointing to the mere fact that Apple did this and that does not mean that the result (i.e. the design) is unique.

Why do you keep coming back to this? It doesn't matter if the individual elements were used before. It is the entirety of the design that is considered.

See above.

The obvious answer would be that no one has applied for trade dress protection for your "porridge", probably because they didn't think it was unique enough to qualify.

As stated, i dont even think they have to. Also, see above.

Obviously, there is a line at which a design becomes worthy of protection. Simply a rectangular shape for a tablet isn't going to qualify for protection. That's why we have judges. They will consider EU law and precedent to determine if Apple's claims meet a standard.

See above.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Maybe Samsung should make a tablet shaped like a pyramid or trapezoid or octagon. Or did Apple invent those too. I haven't seen too many phones or tablets that weren't some form of a rectangle, black, with a screen that has icons when it's powered on. Most have at least slightly rounded corners so you don't have a knife edge to slice yourself open like the needle point edges in the center of the MBP.

 

[divinox]

Maybe Samsung should make a tablet shaped like a pyramid or trapezoid or octagon. Or did Apple invent those too. I haven't seen too many phones or tablets that weren't some form of a rectangle, black, with a screen that has icons when it's powered on. Most have at least slightly rounded corners so you don't have a knife edge to slice yourself open like the needle point edges in the center of the MBP.

Imo they should just save some trees and file a blank paper, with a note saying: Forget about it, whatever you did - we patented the hell out of it.

And yeah, while they're at it they should just file a picture of the world, with a text saying (in helvetica of course): "iWorld, pay up suckers".

 

[AppleScruff1]

Imo they should just save some trees and file a blank paper, with a note saying: Forget about it, whatever you did - we patented the hell out of it.

And yeah, while they're at it they should just file a picture of the world, with a text saying (in helvetica of course): "iWorld, pay up suckers".

The past 2 weeks it sure sounds like they're heading that way. I hope consumers take notice and respond, but they are too brainwashed.

 

[BaldiMac]

What if they both are?





If it wasnt obvious i live in the EU.



What makes the two mutually exclusive? Why cant both be considered unique in the eyes of the (retarded) law? (Yes, that may seem completely counter-intuitive, but its really not).

However, i was asking YOU. You never - ever - said, IF A holds then Y. You just said Y. What you just stated is somewhat retarded to state, as its a tautology; i.e. "if the court finds it unique, and not allowed to build on, it is considered (by the authority as) unique and not allowed to build on". No ****, ey?


Nor does it mean that its special. Like earlier stated we're dealing with a continuum here. As such, it is not sufficient to point at Apples inclusion of X into design set Y and say - behold, its unique! If so, the inclusion of Z into X+Y would also be unique. Rather, the inclusion of X into design set Y MAY create something unique. Similarly, the inclusion of Z into (the now unique) X+Y may create something unique.

Ergo: Just pointing to the mere fact that Apple did this and that does not mean that the result (i.e. the design) is unique.




See above.

As stated, i dont even think they have to. Also, see above.



See above.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You seem to be taking points out of the context that they were made and trying to make semantic arguments instead of legal ones.

Obviously, you acknowledge that trade dress protection exists. The question is whether or not Apple's claims, in their entirety, qualify for protection. I don't know whether or not Apple's claims meet EU standards. Personally, I don't think the copying matters enough (however blatant it is) to ban the Samsung products in question.

What should be obvious from the size of the legal departments of the companies involved, is that the decision isn't straightforward. I think it's safe to assume Apple's lawyers were aware of EU standards when they registered their claim, making it as vague as they thought they could legally defend. And I would hope that Samsung would have investigated how close they could get to the line based on the obvious similarities between the products.

I haven't been arguing whether Apple's claims are valid. I've said multiple times that I'm not familiar enough with EU law to make that determination. I have been refuting all the claims that prior art containing some, but not all, of Apple's claims negates Apple's trade dress protection.

Maybe Samsung should make a tablet shaped like a pyramid or trapezoid or octagon. Or did Apple invent those too. I haven't seen too many phones or tablets that weren't some form of a rectangle, black, with a screen that has icons when it's powered on. Most have at least slightly rounded corners so you don't have a knife edge to slice yourself open like the needle point edges in the center of the MBP.

Luckily, that's not the entirety of Apple's claim. But, as usual, you are just here to spread your fanboy FUD.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Luckily, that's not the entirety of Apple's claim. But, as usual, you are just here to spread your fanboy FUD.

Some of their claims are idiotic, at least to a rational person. Of course there are some Apple cheerleaders that think Steve invented the world, but unfortunately for them that's not the case. I'm not here to spread anything, I'm here to learn.

 

[adder7712]

And:
Image

That one is quite funny for someone familiar with the Kinect…

I lol'd!

I actually have Kinect and that does look recognisable. Perhaps MS should be the next victim as Kinect is infringing Apple's patents?!

 

[divinox]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You seem to be taking points out of the context that they were made and trying to make semantic arguments instead of legal ones.

Obviously, you acknowledge that trade dress protection exists. The question is whether or not Apple's claims, in their entirety, qualify for protection. I don't know whether or not Apple's claims meet EU standards. Personally, I don't think the copying matters enough (however blatant it is) to ban the Samsung products in question.

What should be obvious from the size of the legal departments of the companies involved, is that the decision isn't straightforward. I think it's safe to assume Apple's lawyers were aware of EU standards when they registered their claim, making it as vague as they thought they could legally defend. And I would hope that Samsung would have investigated how close they could get to the line based on the obvious similarities between the products.

I haven't been arguing whether Apple's claims are valid. I've said multiple times that I'm not familiar enough with EU law to make that determination. I have been refuting all the claims that prior art containing some, but not all, of Apple's claims negates Apple's trade dress protection.



Luckily, that's not the entirety of Apple's claim. But, as usual, you are just here to spread your fanboy FUD.

No need to reiterate anything. As for Apple's lawyers knowing where to draw the line i'd say: "call".

To me, registrations like the one above is nothing but a weapon, one that the system never intended for them to have.

 

[divinox]

I lol'd!

I actually have Kinect and that does look recognisable. Perhaps MS should be the next victim as Kinect is infringing Apple's patents?!

Apple will not go near MSFT, Jobs may be "Jobsy", but hes not stupid. Thats a war they can never win.

 

[adder7712]

No need to reiterate anything. As for Apple's lawyers knowing where to draw the line i'd say: "call".

Image

To me, registrations like the one above is nothing but a weapon, one that the system never intended for them to have.

That pretty much looks like any generic touchscreen phone out there.

It could be bag too or anything that resembles that shape.

 

[adder7712]

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I've stated several times that I hope Apple loses this claim based on the information that has been reported. Doesn't change the legal issues being discussed. Can you please stop with your "everyone that disagrees with me is a blind fanboy" crap?

The question is whether or not an EU judge interprets Apple's claim as being worthy of protection under EU standards. I don't know enough about EU law to know if Apple's claim is valid. It's certainly not an obvious win for Samsung. If the judge considers Apple's registration as worthy of trade dress protection, than Samsung obviously infringes based on what has been reported.

Regardless of the legal questions, I think it is obvious that Samsung copied Apple's design as closely as they thought they could get away with. Apple thinks they went too far. I just don't think it matters enough to ban Samsung's products. A perfectly normal disagreement to be adjudicated in a court of law. You don't have to be evil to ask a court to resolve a dispute. That's why we have civil courts.

It more that you seem to really be defending Apple here.
I would agree Samsung design is iPad inspired but that is it. From there it they are different. I honestly call Apples case week because how many ways can you make a black slab.

Apple is suing Motorola in another case for the XOOM but the XOOM fits with Motorola design standards and it is a black slab yet Apple is somehow thinking that is a rip off. I am surprised Apple has not sued ASUS for the transform yet.