No this is like saying the murderer was a 6ft black male when it really was a 5 ft white female.
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
No this is like saying the murderer was a 6ft black male when it really was a 5 ft white female.
Your knowledge of EU law sounds pretty ironclad. Seems amazing that Apple's lawyer's aren't aware of the fact that the word "Samsung" on the device nullifies all their claims.
Think this is re galaxy tab. it happened.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25065/Apple_Tampered_with_Evidence_in_German_Apple_v_Samsung_Case
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?
Last edited:
JooJoo is one example. There are many others that posters have already contributed.
So what if they look a little similar. So what if Samsung took some design cues from the iPhone, iPad, and iOS? What's the big deal? I don't think anyone is going to mistakenly purchase a Galaxy Tab thinking it's an iPad. If they do buy it's because the Galaxy Tab is superior. It's time to tab.
Your knowledge of EU law sounds pretty ironclad. Seems amazing that Apple's lawyer's aren't aware of the fact that the word "Samsung" on the device nullifies all their claims.
Yep, I pretty sure this "Apple's layer" left EU in a hurry.
Last edited:
What i dont like about the Tab is that they are messing with "Weisers definition". The Tab is way smaller than a Pad :- (
Mark Weiser + PARCTAB.
Grid-based icon UI. Yet another Apple er... PARC invention (or not, who cares).
....wonder if that big button takes you back to the home-screen. Sure as hell would be funny.
Uglier would be subjective but youre DEAD WRONG when you say its laggier. Have you even used the Galaxy S?
Of what relevance are the factual evidence? It doesn't matter if there's more factual evidence than the false ones. All it takes is one error to discredit any case.
But people's confirmation bias is so strong they think all the other positive evidence that Apple has provided outweighs these couple of set of altered images. I don't think so.
Your knowledge of EU law sounds pretty ironclad. Seems amazing that Apple's lawyer's aren't aware of the fact that the word "Samsung" on the device nullifies all their claims.
Actually, he is not (that) far from the truth. On a continuum that statement is (imo) more true than Apples claim of wrong-doing from Samsungs part.
Remember what i wrote the other day about handbags? Same thing.
Chanel 2.55
Not Chanel 2.55
Im quite sure Chanel has design registrations for their bags, and protect the hell out of them. Yet, bags like the second one are abundant. Why? Because i am in my full right to make a bag like that if i so please.
(in fact, i dont think they even care as long as the wannabe-chanels are just that (and not just fakes). Just adds allure to their offering, something they capitalize on).
Please stop talking. Apple's brief in these cases clearly noted the sizes of the respective products.
More to the point, neither the German and the Dutch case are based on the size and shape of the products at issue. So all you street-corner IP lawyers can just stick your comparisons to wheels and such that in your USB ports.
The case is about the totality of the design. The fact that the Samsung products are designed in such a way that the average consumer could very well mistake them for Apple products. Its about the metal bezel, the single button, the lack of ports, and the similarity of the icons.
The Judge in the German case didn't base his decision on the photos. He based it on his physical examination of the actual products. And trust me - he knows a heck of a lot more about German product law than you do.
But you are focusing on a discrepancy that is irrelevant to the case. Size does not matter to Apple's claim. Aspect ratio does not matter to Apple's claim. Apple even acknowledge the size discrepancy in their claim.
Right back at you. I admit to not knowing EU standards or the context of these images. Based on what we know, I hope Apple loses this case. But here you are accusing them of falsifying evidence and sabotaging their own case without all the information that you need to make that determination.
Okay? I'm not sure what you are trying to show. Unless you have a list of design elements that are protected by EU law to differentiate a legal copy from an illegal copy of the Chanel bag, you haven't really added anything with this example.
As i wrote in the other thread:
Making the Tab (e.g.) look like a fake iPad (e.g.) does, however, matter to them.
Apple's claim is that their community design filing was violated because Samsung used *six* elements of its design together. You've pointed out some rectangles with rounded edges, but I don't see any of the other five elements in these designs (edge to edge glass, metal rim, etc.).
Except, this physical examination most likely were doctored by Apple's layers too.
Apple doesnt have any design elements protected by EU law as of today. They have design elements registered, but that is a different matter.
With the images i tried to examplify my statement about the continuum. I'd say that just removing the chanel logo might be cutting it close, remove logo and make some minor alterations, however, and you are home free. This is in line with my reading on pattern protection, which should be somewhat equivalent to "community designs" (if not the same thing).
I think its patently obvious why Apple is so hell bent on this at the moment. With rumours about the home button being more elongated the iPhone will in fact resemble the samsung phone!
And than Apple will turn around and sue samsung for copying elongated home button.
MagSafe was a copy of Japanese deep fryers. And yet apple 'patented it'.
And people do you remember Marios Brothers and Street Fighter? They had simulated physics. Will apple sue them too?
6 highly generic elements, yes. And once again, what i say is being taken out of its context.
Ill respond anyway:
As for metal rims, no idea. It surely has been done before, as evidenced by the Samsung frame. Similarly, from what i can remember at least one of the slates had a colored rim (white i think). Anyway, if you plan on having an edge to edge screen you generally want some type of rim, its surely the norm. As for edge-to-edge glass, well. We've surely seen it elsewhere when it comes to LCD's. Samsung have done a few TVs like that if i am not mistaken. Nothing new about that type of style, or design if you will. Certainly nothing protectable about it (which is what matters here).
Oh and yeah, glass-to-glass (can) serve functional purposes as well, as evidenced by e.g. the playbook - making it even more important to not give anyone exclusivity.
Does anyone have a reference to evidence that the German judge saw real tablets?
Almost every blog points to a PCPro UK article that started the real device claim.
Unfortunately, PCPro only cited the Apple injunction request, not the court, which makes no sense. Not only does that not prove there were real devices in court, but in the injunction request Apple stated that they used a non-EU version of the Tab in its pictures and copy claims.
I seem to recall a statement by the court itself about something, but can't find it. Thanks for any links!
--
Edit: Okay, I finally found the Dusseldorf District Court statement. It doesn't say anything about handling real devices either.
Therefore, unless someone comes up with better references, I don't think there's any evidence that the judge saw an actual EU version Tab. That idea seems to have started from a reporting mistake.
.
Almost every blog points to a PCPro UK article that started the real device claim.
Unfortunately, PCPro only cited the Apple injunction request, not the court, which makes no sense. Not only does that not prove there were real devices in court, but in the injunction request Apple stated that they used a non-EU version of the Tab in its pictures and copy claims.
I seem to recall a statement by the court itself about something, but can't find it. Thanks for any links!
--
Edit: Okay, I finally found the Dusseldorf District Court statement. It doesn't say anything about handling real devices either.
Therefore, unless someone comes up with better references, I don't think there's any evidence that the judge saw an actual EU version Tab. That idea seems to have started from a reporting mistake.
.
Last edited:
Matter to who? The judge? Do you really think this case is going to be decided from pictures without the actual devices being presented as evidence?
Here is an example of the point I'm trying to make. Say I make a chair and register the design. Someone else makes the exact same chair but twice the size. It would be perfectly legitimate for me to take two photographs, one of my chair and one of the other chair, and post them side by side with each being 4 inches high in order to illustrate the similarities in the design. I could present the pictures as evidence with the acknowledgement that the bigger chair has been scaled down.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm not deceiving anyone. I'm not falsifying evidence.
Obviously you are new to the discussion of Apple law suits.
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
When you look at the Braun products by Dieter Ramsmany of them at New York's MoMAand compare them to Ive's work at Apple, you can clearly see the similarities in their philosophies way beyond the sparse use of color, the selection of materials and how the products are shaped around the function with no artificial design, keeping the design "honest."
No, i dont think this case will be decided without a full investigation. Where did i state that? But answer me this: If it doesnt matter, why did Apple go to such lengths to show similarities beyond what is there? Youre arguing against yourself here.