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

[dba7dba]

+1

If it were the other way i.e, if Apple had come up with split keyboard first and Samsung had introduced it in Android tablets, Apple would've sued them. I think Apple should stop suing every goddamn company.

Also I don't like the people who take Apple's marketing so seriously. I find it funny to see people calling iPad 'magical' and such. If Apple introduces something (which is already there), its re-inventing and if someone else uses the same thing its copying...

I remember Mr Jobs making following the following statement on stage when introducing iPhone/etc

"we patented the hell out of it"


Seems like the journalists (and general public) just take his word for it without any fact checking and somehow believe Apple is the most innovative company.

But there is another metric for measuring how innovative a company is and that's the # of patents a company receives from USPTO (as much as it's controversial).

Samsung was #2, after IBM, for past 10 years straight. Apple just broke into top 50 last year. Not top five, but top fifty.

 

[divinox]

They showed the thumbs layout was shown in a Windows 8 video before Apple showed it in iOS 5, but as iOS 5 will launch before Windows 8 people will most likely say Microsoft copied them.

MSFT couldve released the ipad in 2003, and still have people say they stole it in the end. Oh snap, they did... RDF RDF RDF!

----------

HP/Compaq Tc1000 or TC1100

Too bad it wasnt an iPAQ, now that would've been classic!

----------

I remember Mr Jobs making following the following statement on stage when introducing iPhone/etc

"we patented the hell out of it"


Seems like the journalists (and general public) just take his word for it without any fact checking and somehow believe Apple is the most innovative company.

But there is another metric for measuring how innovative a company is and that's the # of patents a company receives from USPTO (as much as it's controversial).

Samsung was #2, after IBM, for past 10 years straight. Apple just broke into top 50 last year.

Who was #1?

 

[ufwa]

Image

this one is so lovely that i have to post it. no idea what device it is. anyone recognize it?

its an HP Compaq tc1000/1100

the two were very from the outside. If you debranded the HP and Compaq from the two you wouldn't notice.

Specifically though someone photoshopped in the compaq one.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

who was #1?

ibm

 

[dba7dba]

Who was #1?

It's not Apple for sure.

"Samsung was #2, after IBM,"

 

[hans1972]

(I specifically looked for pads from 2005 and earlier* (some of them, like the vista electrovaya and one of the PBJ slates are probably post-2005 though)).

* this is when Apple patented the wheel, err... registered the generic design.

Apple´s Community Design is from May 2004.

The tablet PC you listed from 2003 seems to be the strongest candidate for a prior art claim but do you have any pictures for the backside and the sides? They also form part of the Community Design.

 

[swagi]

My 0.02$

If Macrumors wants to up its credibility with me as a reliable resource for this patent stuff they surely have to do one thing:

STOP POSTING THAT SAMSUNG GALAXY PHOTO NOT SHOWING THE HOME SCREEN!

For christ sake, how many times do we have to go through this. In case you haven't realized: In the news story the Galaxy screenshot on the right shows an icon in the lower right corner depicting a house. This one gets you to the home screen.

You know, the one that is actually populated with a weather widget and a facebook widget in nearly EVERY promotional shot of the phone.

Macrumors - the new home of pro-Apple biased Fanboy-Flamebait.

 

[iEvolution]

This is the kind of stuff we don't need, talk about anti-competitive behavior.

Good riddance apple get the hell out of here with the attitude like they created the tablet and no one else has.

Where are all the original tablet creators to send apple to the cleaners? Oh that's right they don't have the funds.

Now that apple has all this money they sure like to throw their weight around.

I've had a generally negative opinion of apple since around 2007 when they developed this "our ***** don't stink" attitude.

 

[bushido]

If Macrumors wants to up its credibility with me as a reliable resource for this patent stuff they surely have to do one thing:

STOP POSTING THAT SAMSUNG GALAXY PHOTO NOT SHOWING THE HOME SCREEN!

For christ sake, how many times do we have to go through this. In case you haven't realized: In the news story the Galaxy screenshot on the right shows an icon in the lower right corner depicting a house. This one gets you to the home screen.

You know, the one that is actually populated with a weather widget and a facebook widget in nearly EVERY promotional shot of the phone.

Macrumors - the new home of pro-Apple biased Fanboy-Flamebait.

this is actually not macrumors fault but what apple used in their case

 

[vrDrew]

I see our resident Apple-hating cabal have been hard at work today. I had no idea we had so many experts on EU trademark and IP law here....

Its quite apparent few people commenting have ever spent much time dealing with Intellectual Property law, or even legal documents in general. Apple's lawyers presented their case in such a way that it supports their arguments? Well, duh, thats what lawyers DO. You don't pay some big lawfirm €2000 an hour to make your case look weak.

Secondly, its simply two photographs, taken of the actual products in question. There is certainly no requirement in Dutch civil procedure that photographic evidence be taken under identical conditions. More to the point Apple's filings very clearly give the exact as-shipped dimensions of the Samsung (and Apple) products, plus the Judge in the Dutch case actually physically examined the items. Pretty hard to argue that anyone was trying to "fool" anyone.

Lastly, I think you all need to face up to one pretty salient point: Apple's iPhone and iPad are unquestionably being copied by Samsung. (No-one in their right mind is going to suggest Apple's engineers took apart whatever piece of junk cellphone Samsung was selling back in 2006 to look for design cues on the iPhone.) Whether that copying rises to the level of legal wrongdoing is up to the Dutch and German legal systems to work out. But I'm pretty sure the people actually making the decision are far more familiar with the appropriate procedures, statutes, standards, and precedents than anyone mouthing off in this thread.

You also need to recognize that many EU countries have different legal protections to Intellectual Property, and especially commercial trade dress. You cannot sell, in Europe, carbonated white wine in a bottle with the name "Champagne" on it - unless you actually make the wine in the Champage region of France. German bakers are taking supermarket giant Aldi to court over their description of "fresh-baked" bread. In other words, DON'T APPLY US LEGAL STANDARDS TO EU CASES.

Apple is well within its rights to use every means at its disposal to protect both its intellectual property, it business, and its profits. A company that is making profits by the billions each quarter from the iPhone and iPad can certainly well afford to spend a few million dollars each month on legal fees. And if a handful of computer geeks don't like it, too bad. Its not up to you.

 

[divinox]

Apple´s Community Design is from May 2004.

The tablet PC you listed from 2003 seems to be the strongest candidate for a prior art claim but do you have any pictures for the backside and the sides? They also form part of the Community Design.

Guess it got the years mixed up, doesnt really matter as it still shows that the design is indeed generic and not something that came with the ipad (which Apple necessarily has to claim to even have somewhat of a point).

As for the back, it is most likely flat (for obvious reasons) possibly with some venting. Even so, flat backs are generic (less heat, less cooling). As for sides, well, we can expect a somewhat thicker device (smaller components, thinner devices). Youll probably find a set of ports for I/O devices as well, for obvious reasons.

Whatever way you look at it, Apples registered design is generic and not worthy of exclusivity. In fact, the registration as such is a blunt attempt at system abuse; the protection they are seeking where never meant to give them any protection in first place.

----------

It's not Apple for sure.

"Samsung was #2, after IBM,"

im daft.

 

[dba7dba]

im daft.

Sorry didn't mean to com across as harsh/mean.

But seriously I never knew about samsung being in #2 spot all these years until I got interested in the stuff with Apple suing samsung and the rest.

 

[roadrunner-299]

Samsung was #2, AFTER IBM, for past 10 years straight....

Who was #1?

1. read!
2. think!
3. post!

 

[ChazUK]

I see our resident Apple-hating cabal have been hard at work today. I had no idea we had so many experts on EU trademark and IP law here....

This seems to be a common complaint on the forums lately. Why should someone have to be an expert to have an opinion on a news article? It seems to be a common tactic now days to try and belittle those that have a less than favourable opinion on Apple by dismissing someone's expertise.

When I start work on a Monday morning, you can bet your bottom dollar that a few people will criticise how a Football team or Manager has performed over the weekends Footy matches yet none of them are professional football managers.

Aren't they entitled to their opinions? I'm sure that everyone on this forum has expressed a an opinion on something they're not an "expert".

 

[dba7dba]

This seems to be a common complaint on the forums lately. Why should someone have to be an expert to have an opinion on a news article? It seems to be a common tactic now days to try and belittle those that have a less than favourable opinion on Apple by dismissing someone's expertise.

When I start work on a Monday morning, you can bet your bottom dollar that a few people will criticise how a Football team or Manager has performed over the weekends Footy matches yet none of them are professional football managers.

Aren't they entitled to their opinions? I'm sure that everyone on this forum has expressed a an opinion on something they're not an "expert".

I see it as a sign of weakness on their part. Seriously I use apple stuff but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[divinox]

I see our resident Apple-hating cabal have been hard at work today. I had no idea we had so many experts on EU trademark and IP law here....

Design registration != Trademark. But no, im no expert on those either. I have read my fair share of cases on the Swedish equivalent to design registrations though (mönsterskydd, in eng. pattern protection). Based on these readings Apple has as much of a chance as someone trying to gain exclusivity to a generic leather handbag. There are surely design registrations on leather handbags - or any type of handbag for that matter - but these are specific, not generic. Doesnt stop e.g. HM to sell similar leather handbags to those being sold by Chanel - and it shouldnt either. Apple is going way to far here, and hopefully the court agrees with me (i would be really surprised if they didnt).

Its quite apparent few people commenting have ever spent much time dealing with Intellectual Property law, or even legal documents in general. Apple's lawyers presented their case in such a way that it supports their arguments? Well, duh, thats what lawyers DO. You don't pay some big lawfirm €2000 an hour to make your case look weak.

You do know it is illegal to provide the court with false evidence, right? This, no matter how well the fake evidence supports their arguments. Fake evidence being able to support arguments is pretty much why it is illegal to provide them, you know.

Secondly, its simply two photographs, taken of the actual products in question. There is certainly no requirement in Dutch civil procedure that photographic evidence be taken under identical conditions. More to the point Apple's filings very clearly give the exact as-shipped dimensions of the Samsung (and Apple) products, plus the Judge in the Dutch case actually physically examined the items. Pretty hard to argue that anyone was trying to "fool" anyone.

Its not "simply two photographs" when they are edited to create a false perception of similarity. (Arguing against yourself here are we? You already stated that lawyers are supposed to "fool" to make their argument stronger).

Lastly, I think you all need to face up to one pretty salient point: Apple's iPhone and iPad are unquestionably being copied by Samsung.
(No-one in their right mind is going to suggest Apple's engineers took apart whatever piece of junk cellphone Samsung was selling back in 2006 to look for design cues on the iPhone.) Whether that copying rises to the level of legal wrongdoing is up to the Dutch and German legal systems to work out. But I'm pretty sure the people actually making the decision are far more familiar with the appropriate procedures, statutes, standards, and precedents than anyone mouthing off in this thread.

Hopefully, yes. Unfortunately courts in general doesnt really have a good record when it comes to these things.

You also need to recognize that many EU countries have different legal protections to Intellectual Property, and especially commercial trade dress. You cannot sell, in Europe, carbonated white wine in a bottle with the name "Champagne" on it - unless you actually make the wine in the Champage region of France.

Which would be relevant if Samsung called their ipad champagne. I am, however, in my full right to sell carbonated white wine in a "champagne bottle" - the equivalent of what Apple is now suing Samsung for.

German bakers are taking supermarket giant Aldi to court over their description of "fresh-baked" bread. In other words, DON'T APPLY US LEGAL STANDARDS TO EU CASES.

Dont expect them to win (i wish they did though, too many crappy marketing stunts around. Its like "fresh-squeezed juice". The juice itself doesnt need to be fresh at all, all that matters is that they squeezed the oranges within x-time units of picking them).

Apple is well within its rights to use every means at its disposal to protect both its intellectual property, it business, and its profits. A company that is making profits by the billions each quarter from the iPhone and iPad can certainly well afford to spend a few million dollars each month on legal fees. And if a handful of computer geeks don't like it, too bad. Its not up to you.

In the end, we are consumers. In the end, it is up to us. I just wish more consumers were somewhat conscious. (Trust me, i have no delusions of that happening, but a guy can wish, cant he?)

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I see our resident Apple-hating cabal have been hard at work today. I had no idea we had so many experts on EU trademark and IP law here....

And you all wonder why Apple fans are the least respected. It is because they say crap like this every time anyone says something negative about Apple.

(No-one in their right mind is going to suggest Apple's engineers took apart whatever piece of junk cellphone Samsung was selling back in 2006 to look for design cues on the iPhone.)

And I do not believe anyone is saying that. What they are saying and pointing out is the black slab design Apple is using is not new nor original but a rather logical solution to a design problem. Nothing is special about it and Apple did not invent it. Apple was not the first one to come up with that design. I almost bought a `17in monitor back in 2004 that looked a lot like the current iPad just it was a monitor. It was flat, black design with a glass cover. It was made by NEC.

Point is the design is nothing special and just a logical solution.

 

[divinox]

1. read!
2. think!
3. post!

See my response. I am daft. (Funny thing is i read it, but somehow my brain failed to compute. Guess it read it as IBM being third. On a similar note, is MSFTs portfolio still considered to be the most valuable? Havent read anything on the matter as of late...

----------

Sorry didn't mean to com across as harsh/mean.

But seriously I never knew about samsung being in #2 spot all these years until I got interested in the stuff with Apple suing samsung and the rest.

Dont worry, you didnt.

 

[ModerateFKR]

I really don't get why even Apple fans are upset about this. It's a legal case. If a court finds Samsung have infringed Apple's patents etc, then the decision will be appealed. If the appeal fails, there will be one or two fewer iPhone copies out there.

I also don't understand the difference between the devices actually pretending to BE iPhones, and these more mainstream approximations. Both represent colossal laziness, and a clear intent to plagiarize.

The solution is simple: Don't copy, INNOVATE!

 

[Claefer]

I see our resident Apple-hating cabal have been hard at work today. I had no idea we had so many experts on EU trademark and IP law here....

Its quite apparent few people commenting have ever spent much time dealing with Intellectual Property law, or even legal documents in general. Apple's lawyers presented their case in such a way that it supports their arguments? Well, duh, thats what lawyers DO. You don't pay some big lawfirm €2000 an hour to make your case look weak.

Secondly, its simply two photographs, taken of the actual products in question. There is certainly no requirement in Dutch civil procedure that photographic evidence be taken under identical conditions. More to the point Apple's filings very clearly give the exact as-shipped dimensions of the Samsung (and Apple) products, plus the Judge in the Dutch case actually physically examined the items. Pretty hard to argue that anyone was trying to "fool" anyone.

Lastly, I think you all need to face up to one pretty salient point: Apple's iPhone and iPad are unquestionably being copied by Samsung. (No-one in their right mind is going to suggest Apple's engineers took apart whatever piece of junk cellphone Samsung was selling back in 2006 to look for design cues on the iPhone.) Whether that copying rises to the level of legal wrongdoing is up to the Dutch and German legal systems to work out. But I'm pretty sure the people actually making the decision are far more familiar with the appropriate procedures, statutes, standards, and precedents than anyone mouthing off in this thread.

You also need to recognize that many EU countries have different legal protections to Intellectual Property, and especially commercial trade dress. You cannot sell, in Europe, carbonated white wine in a bottle with the name "Champagne" on it - unless you actually make the wine in the Champage region of France. German bakers are taking supermarket giant Aldi to court over their description of "fresh-baked" bread. In other words, DON'T APPLY US LEGAL STANDARDS TO EU CASES.

Apple is well within its rights to use every means at its disposal to protect both its intellectual property, it business, and its profits. A company that is making profits by the billions each quarter from the iPhone and iPad can certainly well afford to spend a few million dollars each month on legal fees. And if a handful of computer geeks don't like it, too bad. Its not up to you.

I don't need to be a scientist to know that evolution is false. One gap in the theory is enough to knock the entire thing down.

These set of altered images is enough to invalidate all other evidence Apple has, no matter how accurate they are.

Also, Apple may want to protect their designs but if Samsung wants to copy certain aesthetic elements they should be allowed to. I see nothing wrong with copying design patterns. Apple certainly is guilty of knowingly copying JooJoo.

 

[hans1972]

Guess it got the years mixed up, doesnt really matter as it still shows that the design is indeed generic and not something that came with the ipad (which Apple necessarily has to claim to even have somewhat of a point).

Of all the devices listed I only found one or two which was very similar to Apple´s Community Design. All the others had too much stuff on the front, a lot of ports on the side etc. So you can make tablets that is different from the Community Design.

It might be to general but I am not sure that Apple is going to lose this case. If you look at some of the Community Designs that Samsung has for notebooks they seem pretty general too.

I do think that their Community Design provides good argument for that Apple came up with the design of the iPad on their own and didn´t look too much at other computers as some people claim.

----------

Apple certainly is guilty of knowingly copying JooJoo.

Apple registered its design in 2004, 6 years before the Joo Joo. If you look at the Community Design and the iPad 1 they are very similar.

If you are to bring up examples of prior art you should look at devices from before May 2004.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Here is my community design for a human being. Everyone here better start paying me soon.

 

[divinox]

Of all the devices listed I only found one or two which was very similar to Apple´s Community Design. All the others had too much stuff on the front, a lot of ports on the side etc. So you can make tablets that is different from the Community Design.

It might be to general but I am not sure that Apple is going to lose this case. If you look at some of the Community Designs that Samsung has for notebooks they seem pretty general too.

I do think that their Community Design provides good argument for that Apple came up with the design of the iPad on their own and didn´t look too much at other computers as some people claim.

----------



Apple registered its design in 2004, 6 years before the Joo Joo. If you look at the Community Design and the iPad 1 they are very similar.

If you are to bring up examples of prior art you should look at devices from before May 2004.

First, as for the pictures they were posted first and foremost to debunk the "before ipad/after ipad" nonsense. In doing so i also show that the design Apple is trying to protect is indeed generic.

Second, Following your line of reasoning Samsung just needs to change one element and they are home free. Guess what, they already have.

Last, for all i care Apple couldve registered in 1804. Its still just as generic, and unworthy of protection.

Edit: Im quite sure Apple didn't look very much at other devices - they really did not have to. As argued several times on this board they just did the obvious, like so many before them (i.e., there is no copying to talk about).

Edit 2: So what if Samsung has generic designs too? Unless they have successfully protected them it doesnt say crap about crap. Feel free to link them, btw, and ill have a look.

 

[vrDrew]

These set of altered images is enough to invalidate all other evidence Apple has, no matter how accurate they are..

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

That is like saying that if a police report contains an error about the defendant's birth date, then all the rest of the evidence linking him to a murder is invalidated. That standard doesn't exist in any legal system anywhere in the world.

Secondly, in neither the Dutch NOR the German case has either image been altered. Just because it doesn't measure up to your made-up standards doesn't make it "false."

 

[AnalyzeThis]

The first time it could of been written off as a lawyer being sloppy and missing it. 2nd time in a row tells us that Apple is doing it on purpose. It can destroy an entire case because most courts look very harshly on one trying to lie in court.

Exactly, and the whole WORLD knows about this crime...

BTW, design patents are extremely specific. You can have exact replica, but the word samsung make it different enough to cancel any claims. That's the way it is, baby... I bet Apple did not have a design patent with samsung on it. Sorry, case dismissed and btw, you have to compensate defendant for all monetary damages. closed.