Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeking Complete Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablets and Phones in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
![[DL]](/data/avatars/m/410/410081.jpg?1266785706){kind=avatar}
Yep, that's why there are judges / courts. If Apple fabricated evidence, Apple will be caught (i.e. wait till the court decides).
Lawyers
Apples legal team better be making BANK for all the work their doing these days.."sir, if we alter the images..they..they wont hold up in court.." Steve in the background screaming at them "MAKE THE PHONES THE SAME SIZE!"
Apples legal team better be making BANK for all the work their doing these days.."sir, if we alter the images..they..they wont hold up in court.." Steve in the background screaming at them "MAKE THE PHONES THE SAME SIZE!"
This is so stupid to be even considered as a joke
Apple fanboys have the mind of a childthat's why they're so easy to manipulate.
A few quick points.
Apple patented the iPhone heavily. Samsung must have known this and took the risk to create these iPhonelike products.
Apple would be foolish not to defend their patents where clear violations are occurring. It would set a precedent that would make future innovations indefensible.
Also it is not falsification of evidence to show a configuration of a competitor product that any user of the product would see in the normal every day use.
It's up to a judge to find similarities not differences as grounds for patent violation. Apple has to present its strongest case not its weakest.
It's not evidence tampering!
Apple patented the iPhone heavily. Samsung must have known this and took the risk to create these iPhonelike products.
Apple would be foolish not to defend their patents where clear violations are occurring. It would set a precedent that would make future innovations indefensible.
Also it is not falsification of evidence to show a configuration of a competitor product that any user of the product would see in the normal every day use.
It's up to a judge to find similarities not differences as grounds for patent violation. Apple has to present its strongest case not its weakest.
It's not evidence tampering!
Apple's legal case in most of Europe is based partly on a Community Design registration (that they got simply by sending it in with a fee), which shows a thinnish rectangular object with rounded edges and a mostly equal sized border. (Nothing about a black border, btw.)
Their Design registration says absolutely nothing about being for a tablet computer. In fact, it has no description at all. Just the picture below and another one showing an edge view.
However, you're right. There's more involved than just the design registration. More later.
Last edited:
Exactly. I mean, I'd want to read Apple's filings to know exactly what they're complaining of, but putting two things side by side and seeing if they look too much alike is not really how patent cases are decided.
This lawsuit is not about patents though. It's about a Community Design registration and trade dress.
Facts people, facts. And Apple didn't patent the iPhone as much as Steve claimed in 2007.
Good thing this isn't a patent case then is it ?
In terms of raw numbers, Apple's market share-up to 100%-declined. But Apple doesn't need 100%. Apple's market share can decline to about 5% and still be expanding customers. People are so caught up in market shares that they don't seem to understand that, while Android has overtaken iOS in terms of users, iOS is expanding with no sign of stopping as well. No one knows where the ceiling is on this market, and when its reached, then you can talk about market share as if it means anything.
Apple didn't blunder by AT&T exclusivity. They simply weren't making a CDMA iPhone and got a sweet deal. Outside the US didn't matter. Lastly, people who bought Android back then weren't even part of the potential Apple marketshare because Apple didn't feel like paying Qualcomm for use of an obsolete CDMA chip, and the only reason Apple released the CDMA iPhone was probably because Verizon wanted one early as iPhone 5 will be LTE and Apple needed to test the legacy hardware. The reality is you just hate AT&T, because it sucks, and you want to blame the iPhone's "Failure" on them, although the iPhone certainly isn't a failure and both AT&T and Apple made a lot of money on their partnership.
Pretty bold move. Still kinda standard when it comes to these lawsuits to ask the world and settle for less. I'm guessing Apple has some validity to some of its claims and it makes even more aggressive claims so as to make the other claims look more reasonable to the courts.
Usually when companies sue each other over patents they will throw about two to three times as many patents at the competitor than they expect to actually find them guilty of infringing.
Gruber linked to this image recently. I found that rather amusing, though I am sure I could find Sci-Fi movie pictures and mockup devices that looked like the iPad. I think Apple was the first to get an actual functioning device in that form factor, though the JooJoo (which released after the iPad was announced, but before the iPad released) had a very similar design, albeit larger.
The design of the iPad and iPad-like tablets basically follows the design of the iPhone. Apple got design patents and community design registrations on that design and then followed up with versions of that design for the iPad. This was no secret, I think Jobs even bragged about it. I still think with my 20/20 hindsight that these companies could have gone after those design patents and community design registrations to get them invalidated as overly-general before hand. I am guessing they were trying to call Apple's bluff on actually enforcing IP protections. Apple has certainly proven they have no problem attempting to protect their IP, especially when it comes to the distinctiveness of their designs.
In the end, I think Apple's case is stronger with regards to some of the UI elements and the phone designs since the tablet designs are certainly obvious leaps from the iPhone design (though I don't know if that means the iPhone design patents would cover the tablets too). Indeed Verizon employees were even telling customers how much the Samsung Android phones were like the iPhone. That's not to say that Verizon sales people are the most knowledgable on the planet, but the fact that they had a phone for sale that was similar enough that they could use "its just like an iPhone" as a selling point is quite telling.
Either way this is all quite a mess. Personally, I think having alternatives is good for the customer, but I also think that these companies all play in the big leagues and they all know how IP protection works. From what I heard, Apple approached Samsung several times for over a year trying to use their leverage as Samsung's biggest customer to persuade Samsung to design their phones differently -- but Samsung refused. Samsung figured they would call Apple's bluff on the IP protection or risk losing Apple's business for components, but now it appears that Apple is carrying through on both.
In the end, part of Apple's suit is going to be thrown out and they may win part of their suit. Also, Samsung and others may get the tablet design patents and community design registrations invalidated. I think Apple does not want to ignore the problem like they did with Android phones riding on Apple's coattails. I think with tablets, Apple is determined to make it very hard to compete, just like Microsoft made it very hard for folks to compete against Windows. Apple should be careful though.... With the fledgling tablet market it is okay to have a dominant market share, but when the market is no longer "fledgling" the government is going to view that as a monopoly and it is going to stifle Apple's ability to innovate and protect their ecosystem.
Usually when companies sue each other over patents they will throw about two to three times as many patents at the competitor than they expect to actually find them guilty of infringing.
Gruber linked to this image recently. I found that rather amusing, though I am sure I could find Sci-Fi movie pictures and mockup devices that looked like the iPad. I think Apple was the first to get an actual functioning device in that form factor, though the JooJoo (which released after the iPad was announced, but before the iPad released) had a very similar design, albeit larger.
The design of the iPad and iPad-like tablets basically follows the design of the iPhone. Apple got design patents and community design registrations on that design and then followed up with versions of that design for the iPad. This was no secret, I think Jobs even bragged about it. I still think with my 20/20 hindsight that these companies could have gone after those design patents and community design registrations to get them invalidated as overly-general before hand. I am guessing they were trying to call Apple's bluff on actually enforcing IP protections. Apple has certainly proven they have no problem attempting to protect their IP, especially when it comes to the distinctiveness of their designs.
In the end, I think Apple's case is stronger with regards to some of the UI elements and the phone designs since the tablet designs are certainly obvious leaps from the iPhone design (though I don't know if that means the iPhone design patents would cover the tablets too). Indeed Verizon employees were even telling customers how much the Samsung Android phones were like the iPhone. That's not to say that Verizon sales people are the most knowledgable on the planet, but the fact that they had a phone for sale that was similar enough that they could use "its just like an iPhone" as a selling point is quite telling.
Either way this is all quite a mess. Personally, I think having alternatives is good for the customer, but I also think that these companies all play in the big leagues and they all know how IP protection works. From what I heard, Apple approached Samsung several times for over a year trying to use their leverage as Samsung's biggest customer to persuade Samsung to design their phones differently -- but Samsung refused. Samsung figured they would call Apple's bluff on the IP protection or risk losing Apple's business for components, but now it appears that Apple is carrying through on both.
In the end, part of Apple's suit is going to be thrown out and they may win part of their suit. Also, Samsung and others may get the tablet design patents and community design registrations invalidated. I think Apple does not want to ignore the problem like they did with Android phones riding on Apple's coattails. I think with tablets, Apple is determined to make it very hard to compete, just like Microsoft made it very hard for folks to compete against Windows. Apple should be careful though.... With the fledgling tablet market it is okay to have a dominant market share, but when the market is no longer "fledgling" the government is going to view that as a monopoly and it is going to stifle Apple's ability to innovate and protect their ecosystem.
The JooJoo was released before the iPad was announced. The HP Slate was demoed before the iPad was announced.
The Gruber image is pure FUD, using rugadized tablets to try to prove a point that doesn't represent the reality at all.
Doesn't the case extend well beyond the actual hardware though? If it was just a rectangular screen with a black border there would be no case, digital photo frames and other computing devices have had similar designs for some time. The reason the case seems to have any traction is because not only is the software involved (The App drawer being a key aspect) but the marketing material too such as the packaging etc which I'm sure has been brought up.
Apples case regarding Samsung to me isn't so much that the hardware looks the same but that in conjunction with an Android Skin that resembles Apples own devices has resulted in advertising material that in turn could be perceived to be similar to Apples and thus misleading for consumers as well as taking advantage of Apples own development/marketing.
Whether you agree or not is a different matter...but that seems to be their take. To that extent the scaling of the images seems a bit irrelevant to me too. Showing a Galaxy S that is 10% taller doesn't really change the case or argument...I'd say the iPad 1 has an almost identical design to the iPad 2 despite the later being significantly smaller.
European Community Designs apply to the whole of the EU hence the original preliminary ban was given to the whole of the EU except the Netherlands due to a separate case going on there.
Yes. Apple added a claim about colored icons on top of the rectangle with rounded corners.
I have a crazy theory
Well, the VAT issue does account for the lions' share of the difference between UK and US prices. But with UK VAT now at 20%, it certainly doesn't explain why prices in other European countries should be higher than the UK. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of stock in the UK, either.
However, there's a chicken-and-egg question of demand vs. price: obviously if prices are higher, demand will be less - but if demand is low (especially in countries that need everything translated) then the economies of scale are less and prices will be higher...
As for the lawsuits, I'm wondering this: perhaps Apple isn't worried that the iPhone and iPad killers from Samsung et. al. will succeed - perhaps they're worried they will fail and that by this Xmas the shops will be flooded with priced-to-clear Galaxy Tabs and Xooms.
Although I agree that the lawsuits are silly, I do think that Apple's competitors have been incredibly lazy: producing something that is "about as good" as an iDevice and trying to sell it for about the same price as the Apple product. That isn't going to work: to beat Apple they need something which beats the iPad by a clear margin, either on price, features or both. Early tablet adopters have found themselves stuck with old versions of Android, features that don't work (e.g. SD slots, Flash Players that don't play Flash) - and even though many of those things have now been addressed, they've not left a particularly good first impression. Now we have HP pulling out of the tablet market, Motorola getting borged by Google and rumors of an Amazon tablet. I certainly wouldn't buy a Xoom or a Galaxy at the moment - some of the offerings from Asus and Acer look more like it (i.e. cheaper than an iPad) but if Google or Amazon are likely to enter the market, I'll wait and see how they stack up against the iPad3.
Now, I don't think Android will fail, but I think it might well be riding for a fall in the high-end phone and tablet arena where Apple rules and competitors have consistently failed to come up with the mythical "iPad/Phone killer". If I were Apple and saw a short-term way of stopping European shelves being stacked with below-cost discontinued AndroTabs come the January sales (which, the way retail is going, will probably start in November this year) I'd give it a go.
Just a wild theory - not claiming any evidence for it - but it might explain why Apple is following what can only be a short-term strategy.
Well, the VAT issue does account for the lions' share of the difference between UK and US prices. But with UK VAT now at 20%, it certainly doesn't explain why prices in other European countries should be higher than the UK. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of stock in the UK, either.
However, there's a chicken-and-egg question of demand vs. price: obviously if prices are higher, demand will be less - but if demand is low (especially in countries that need everything translated) then the economies of scale are less and prices will be higher...
As for the lawsuits, I'm wondering this: perhaps Apple isn't worried that the iPhone and iPad killers from Samsung et. al. will succeed - perhaps they're worried they will fail and that by this Xmas the shops will be flooded with priced-to-clear Galaxy Tabs and Xooms.
Although I agree that the lawsuits are silly, I do think that Apple's competitors have been incredibly lazy: producing something that is "about as good" as an iDevice and trying to sell it for about the same price as the Apple product. That isn't going to work: to beat Apple they need something which beats the iPad by a clear margin, either on price, features or both. Early tablet adopters have found themselves stuck with old versions of Android, features that don't work (e.g. SD slots, Flash Players that don't play Flash) - and even though many of those things have now been addressed, they've not left a particularly good first impression. Now we have HP pulling out of the tablet market, Motorola getting borged by Google and rumors of an Amazon tablet. I certainly wouldn't buy a Xoom or a Galaxy at the moment - some of the offerings from Asus and Acer look more like it (i.e. cheaper than an iPad) but if Google or Amazon are likely to enter the market, I'll wait and see how they stack up against the iPad3.
Now, I don't think Android will fail, but I think it might well be riding for a fall in the high-end phone and tablet arena where Apple rules and competitors have consistently failed to come up with the mythical "iPad/Phone killer". If I were Apple and saw a short-term way of stopping European shelves being stacked with below-cost discontinued AndroTabs come the January sales (which, the way retail is going, will probably start in November this year) I'd give it a go.
Just a wild theory - not claiming any evidence for it - but it might explain why Apple is following what can only be a short-term strategy.
I'm not quite sure if "FUD" is the term you are looking for (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?) or perhaps "Crap" is the term you meant.
The JooJoo was released on March 25, 2010 -- the iPad was released on April 3, 2010, but was announced and shown with functioning units on January 27, 2010. I think the HP Slate prototype made its debut at CES in 2010 -- which was before the iPad announcement.
Either way, all of them just look like big iPhones -- for which Apple did patent the design in the US and file for community design registration in EU. So I would argue that all of these are inspired by the iPhone and may even be considered an obvious leap. I don't know if the IP protection on the iPhone design would have an bearing because of that, but I think Samsung is going to steer clear of that argument in their defense.
Here is how I see Samsung options to invalidate the design or to defend themselves:
1) Point to industry mockups like Knight Ridder video -- though that was a prop and not a functioning tablet so they may have trouble with that.
2) Point to the iPhone, but then if it is classified as an obvious leap in a bigger form factor then the iPhone designs protection may come into play -- plus it strengthens Apple's position in the smartphone arguments.
3) Point to the HP Slate and put it on Apple to try to claim that was inspired by the iPhone. The HP slate was not a prop, but a prototype which may carry a bit more weight with the courts. The fact that it did not ever ship may hurt Samsung because it gives some credence to HP never got a functioning model in that form factor.
I think option 3 is their best since it points to an actual prototype. Almost certainly HP is not going to testify on Samsung's behalf, but who knows. Either way, option 3 does nothing to bolster Apple's iPhone design and puts the ball back in Apple's court.
I was being polite. It certainly is doubt though, trying to make you doubt reality.
And the JooJoo was demoed on December 7th 2009 with pre-orders starting on December 11th 2009.
Exactly.
And the iPhone just looks like any other screen with a bezel that came before it.
The US design patent is more less broad than the EU Community design registration. And the EU Community Design registration is going to be under fire following these actions and can be revoked if deemed "too obvious".
The original Samsung Galaxy S looks quite a lot like Apple iPhone 3GS but Galaxy S2 isn't aren't even close to iPhone.
When it comes to tablets, its just ridiculous. Nobody is supposed to have rectangular shape? Its like Toyota patenting four wheels in a car...
When it comes to tablets, its just ridiculous. Nobody is supposed to have rectangular shape? Its like Toyota patenting four wheels in a car...
I agree.
They could have (as shown by the Samsung digital picture frame 2006). But here's was their actual proposed 'Slate' shown soon after the 2010 CES.
Philip Newton (Samsung director, March 2010)
The problems I see with the iPad are its processing power and (lack of) connectivity to a certain extent Newton said during a panel discussion at the Samsung Forum in Singapore.
I do feel that that slate-type platform has legs but I think the legs need to be far more powerful, for example an Atom-based product which has far greater flexibility, not to mention inputs and outputs. This has more potential than an iPad.
Attachments
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
I cant believe this... Apple editing/ trolling with pictures?! what?! That is so low :-( C'mon Apple, shape up your act, this is getting really silly.
I cant believe this... Apple editing/ trolling with pictures?! what?! That is so low :-( C'mon Apple, shape up your act, this is getting really silly.
The Samsung Q1 shipped in 2006 :
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/ipad-and-tablets/samsung-q1-review-49266840/
Oh look, a full touch screen device with a bezel.