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

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Indeed they are. The home screen on the Galaxy doesn't look a thing like iOS


I agree. I think the case should be thrown out for falsifying evidence. I'm just saying that even ignoring that fact, the fact that they are cherry picking screenshots to make it look like the Galaxy is an iPhone ripoff should be enough to get the case thrown out of court.

How do you know these are even the images being used in the case? I'm sure there is more to this than what is being presented here. I swear, people believe anything a blog tells them...

It is weird how many legal experts there are on this issue. I would not pretend to understand the how's and why's of the documents nor of the relevancy of the screenshots.

Do people think a judge will make a ruling on a picture for the final decisions?

People need to be a little less eager to jump on apple for any reason. I have not seen anything learned on the issues offer some sort of reasonable analysis.

----------

When the iPad was announced lots of people said "that is just a big iPod touch".

Here is the problem, when the iPhone and iPod touch came out nobody said "that is just a shrunken [precedent tablet x]".

That never happened because such a devce did not exist. It amazes me when people continue to claim some tablet with a similar form factor, looks and specs existed before the iPad.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

+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.

This should be obvious but I will point out that apple makes only a fraction of the number of products Samsung and IBM make. Samsung probably have thousands of products spanning many businesses and product lines.

How many products do you think apple has in comparison?

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

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 second all this Drew. Very well said. This is one of the drawbacks to the modern information age. Anyone with a pulse (not you arn) can put up a website and blog and report whatever they want. In this case someone who knows nothing about the relevant issues or facts created this story. At that point it has spread by other people who actually know nothing about the facts and issues at hand. There it continues to spread.

Lots of people will be shocked when an actual ruling is made and they realize none of these picture issues were ever relevant.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

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.

A logical solution that did not exist until apple invented it. Even though "tablets" and phones had existed for decades.

 

[divinox]

I was just responding to your claim that this alleged misrepresentation will matter.



They didn't go to great lengths. They scaled the pictures to be the same size to illustrate the similarities that Apple believes to exist.

More than scaling took place, as evidenced by the tablet comparison (which may very well be a prototype or what not, its still not the device in question).

You were the one that said 2000 usd lawyers know what they are doing. Then, if these things doesn't matter, why are they doing it? Certainly, they must have known the risk of doing so (they are 2000 usd lawyers, remember - your argument), and no one (especially not 2000 usd lawyers) takes on risk without any gain.

Simple.

(And no, i dont think it will have a huge impact on the final verdict, not at all).

----------

IANAL, but I've partied at a Holiday Inn Express recently. And I've done a lot of research over the past few years. In the US, at least, a trade dress case has to pass three tests:

1) Functionality. If a design is required for a certain type of product to be functional, or it greatly affects the cost to make it a different way, then you cannot protect that design. Since it's not a required design, the iPad passes this test.

2) Distinctiveness. Is the design unique in that field? I think the iPad fails this part.

If it's not unique, then has it acquired secondary meaning? Apple will hope to prove that just the shape says "iPad" to most people. But then test (3) becomes most important:

3) Likelihood of Confusion. This is the tricky one. Just looking similar doesn't cut it. The question is, would a normal consumer actually buy the wrong device, thinking it was either made, or authorized, by Apple?

Usually the more expensive and well known an item, the less likely to pass this test. For instance, in real life not many people pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for an item without knowing at least a tiny bit about them. (The courts aren't going to believe that you bought a Hyundai thinking that it was a Mercedes.)

How well known the products / makers are also plays a part. The lawsuit over Excedrin PM and Tylonel PM using the same suffix and similar packaging was dismissed because the well known names Excedrin and Tylonel took precedence in avoiding customer confusion. This is partly behind the debate over whether or not the Samsung name is shown.

Again, IANAL and I'm hoping that Cmaier will add more info.

1) Well, it reduces the options. Its a portable device, so we want to make it light-weight, thin and not too big overall. Second, its a touch-based device. As such we want to maximize the screen, however in order to avoid unintentional presses while holding the device we need to "frame" the screen.

(this alone gets us very close to Apples registered design, and people would have given you this very basic set of requirements 30, if not 40 years ago).

2) Not really (uniqueness). The only claims i see Apple being able to make are calls to fashion. Fashion itself cannot and should not be protected. It this was clothes it would be a no-brainer, really.

3) My father is the least tech-savvy guy i know (almost at least). He wouldn't have any issue telling them apart. Have no idea how the court decides this however, so ill leave it at just that.

----------

I'm inclined to agree. Have you used a Galaxy S2? I have one, and I am so happy with it! (Only problem so far is a battery drain issue, nothing I can't handle though). It's fast, it's sleek, it's really nice to use and I'm loving Android (coming from iOS). Don't even get me started on how much I love the screen!

Don't get me wrong, Apple DO make good phones, and many people prefer their systems (With good reason, iOS does have some nice features).

To be honest I think the biggest issue here is that the iPhone wasn't released in June, meaning all those people on a 3GS Contract had the option to wait (many not willing), upgrade to a phone that'll be outdated soon (who would do that?) or search for an alternative. Apple will have lost quite a few people on contracts as a result of this, nothing super major, but enough to make a difference.

Especially considering Apple havent even announced the ip5 yet.

----------

Apple posted photos of the products side by side, with slightly different magnifications to demonstrate how strikingly similar they are (the 10% size difference, when viewing the devices side by side, makes them appear more dissimilar than they actually are). If someone with no hands-on time with either device were to view them independently, that person may have difficulty distinguishing between them, and given the much higher public awareness of the iPhone, would likely identify the Samsung as an iPhone.

So, yes, the Samsung is slightly taller and wider than the iPhone, but are you suggesting that a making a device marginally bigger than the one it is copying actually makes it unique?

Edit: if Apple is granted this injunction, I hope that the failure of webOS and the restriction of Android devices doesn't cause Apple to lose its edge in terms of innovation, or this could actually lead to Apple's eventual demise. I believe that competition, as long as it is fair and ethical, can be a great motivator to keep Apple and the rest of the tech industry moving forward.

Hahahah.. Distort reality, much?

---

Maybe if he were blind, otherwise the big fat SAMSUNG is a give-away.

---

No, we are questioning the "uniqueness" of the "original design".

 

[divinox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



A logical solution that did not exist until apple invented it. Even though "tablets" and phones had existed for decades.

Disclaimer: If no year is stated no year is known. May be post-ipad. Its actually quite hard to tell pre-ipad slates from post-ipad slates, so expect errors.

2003.

pbj touch slate - 2005(?)

Sahara i200 (year, anyone?)

Another (yet different) i200...

Available in black...

Bumpers too... (does it say iTablet?)

It did... (TabletKiosk is the manufacturer btw, same as for the Sahara slates)
------ this iTab is a post-ipad release, just showing it for funsies------

The iTab itself is old however, from 2004:

Mom is at Layne's place and just messaged me from the Sahara iTablet, which Layne's school has been reviewing. She likes it -- better than many of the Tablet PCs that she's used. Is it just because it's white? I thought you'd like to see what she IM'd me:

(cant access original article unfortunately, so no idea what she im'd - the following image was next to the text)

docked itablet, 2004.

Another docked Sahara device... (from a 2005 page).

Sahara i213 - picture from 2005, device released 2004 or earlier.

Same device, 2004. (According to reviews, it was quite nice!)

TC1100 - release date anyone?

Motion Computing, LE1600TS (TS was released 2006, not sure if that photo is '06 though).

Same company, different model (m1400). 2004, or earlier.


DO YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE OR IS THAT ENOUGH?

 

[papabanana]

Divinox, I sympathize with your efforts in your quest to prove Apple's legal strategy wrong; I'm sure you put a lot of time into this research.

However, none of your examples are remotely close to the degree of similarity between the Galaxy 10.1 and the iPad. For example, none of the examples have edge-to-edge glass with trim on the edge of the design (both of which are apparent in the community design registration, by the way). Most of your examples, in fact, might conceivably be used by Apple as examples of why the iPad design is unique enough that Samsung's designs demonstrate the equivalent of willful infringement.

Now, obviously samsung's lawyers will put even more time into looking for examples that predate the community design that you did - but if your efforts are any indication, they're going to have a hard time getting anything useful.

 

[Lennholm]

I do enjoy the fact that Samsung seem to be taking the piss with their new television remote.

Image

I've seen this in the flesh (we stock televisions with this remote where I work) and it looks exactly like one of the cheap Chinese iPhone knockoffs, so much so that it wouldn't surprise me if they shared the same chassis.

But since it's a completely different type of product it doesn't count. Oh wait, I forgot, that's only when Apple uses pre-existing designs.

Divinox, I sympathize with your efforts in your quest to prove Apple's legal strategy wrong; I'm sure you put a lot of time into this research.

However, none of your examples are remotely close to the degree of similarity between the Galaxy 10.1 and the iPad. For example, none of the examples have edge-to-edge glass with trim on the edge of the design (both of which are apparent in the community design registration, by the way). Most of your examples, in fact, might conceivably be used by Apple as examples of why the iPad design is unique enough that Samsung's designs demonstrate the equivalent of willful infringement.

Now, obviously samsung's lawyers will put even more time into looking for examples that predate the community design that you did - but if your efforts are any indication, they're going to have a hard time getting anything useful.

So cherry picking which features count is OK? The fact that the iPad copied the rectangle, rounded corners with a bezel design doesn't count but the fact that the Galaxy Tab uses edge to edge glass panel does?

 

[papabanana]

So cherry picking which features count is OK? The fact that the iPad copied the rectangle, rounded corners with a bezel design doesn't count but the fact that the Galaxy Tab uses edge to edge glass panel does?

Actually, yes.

I'm not sure you understand how the general principle behind trade dress. A community design describes a number of features that, taken together, constitute a distinctive and recognizable design. Taken in isolation, some subset of the features will surely be similar to existing art - which doesn't affect the question of whether the design as a whole is distinctive and recognizable.

 

[kdarling]

The glass+frame look was used for the Russian Scribbler SC4000 (a very cool slate with Wacom digitizer).

It came out in early 2008, so it predates the iPad by two years, but comes after the EU design registration.

 

[djdjukic]

Meh, this isn't something to look too much into. Tis just another corporate tactic. You gotta do this in the age of patent trolling. Besides, there are really only 2 ways this might have happened:

1. Apple Legal saw some Samsungs, thought "Hey, let's make some money" and went on to do their job. It's not a legal department if it's afraid to sue.

2. Steve personally wanted to push Samsung. That makes an insane amount of sense, especially with Apple becoming quite reliant on them. *hint:Microsoft*

This isn't "banning Galaxy FOREVER", it's more of a "flex legal muscles" thing.

Also, how does it make them look bad? They treat me well as a customer, I don't care who they sue.

 

[papabanana]

The glass+frame look was used for the Russian Scribbler SC4000 (a very cool slate with Wacom digitizer).

It came out in early 2008, so it predates the iPad by two years, but comes after the EU design registration.

View attachment 299757

That actually looks pretty cool. Too bad it didn't sell enough (i.e. distinctiveness + recognizability) to make any case for samsung's defense. That is, of course, even ignoring the other aspects of the Apple community design.

 

[divinox]

Divinox, I sympathize with your efforts in your quest to prove Apple's legal strategy wrong; I'm sure you put a lot of time into this research.

However, none of your examples are remotely close to the degree of similarity between the Galaxy 10.1 and the iPad. For example, none of the examples have edge-to-edge glass with trim on the edge of the design (both of which are apparent in the community design registration, by the way). Most of your examples, in fact, might conceivably be used by Apple as examples of why the iPad design is unique enough that Samsung's designs demonstrate the equivalent of willful infringement.

Now, obviously samsung's lawyers will put even more time into looking for examples that predate the community design that you did - but if your efforts are any indication, they're going to have a hard time getting anything useful.

Which boils down to fashion. Fashion is not, and should not, be something one can have exclusive rights for. Second, that very glass (at times) needs to be there, as it can be used to add functionality (buttons, gestures etc.). Very simple, really.

p.s. do you think someone else should be able to prevent apple from ever introducing these (bezel-interaction) features in its i-line? if not, why should apple be - seeing how they did not even "invent" it.

Oh well, at least you are willing to admit that Apples case boils down to "edge-to-edge" glass.


----------

The glass+frame look was used for the Russian Scribbler SC4000 (a very cool slate with Wacom digitizer).

It came out in early 2008, so it predates the iPad by two years, but comes after the EU design registration.

View attachment 299757

Seems like an Electrovaya product (they have a whole scribbler line, including that one). Then again, some of these slates came up with a ton of different names, so i really dont know. But yeah, there are more examples like that as well if you dig in to it.

Electrovaya SC4000. Released Jan 2008 (or late 2007).

 

[kdarling]

That actually looks pretty cool. Too bad it didn't sell enough (i.e. distinctiveness + recognizability) to make any case for samsung's defense.

Doesn't have to sell at all to make the iPad design less distinctive.

That is, of course, even ignoring the other aspects of the Apple community design.

What other aspects? The Community Design only had a few drawings on two pages.

The document is available to view here.

Note that they also don't show a Home button.

.

 

[divinox]

That actually looks pretty cool. Too bad it didn't sell enough (i.e. distinctiveness + recognizability) to make any case for samsung's defense. That is, of course, even ignoring the other aspects of the Apple community design.

Doesnt matter if it sold or not, it shows that the design a) is generic and runs down to fashion, (and possibly b, that the glass is needed to provide certain functionality).

----------

Doesn't have to sell at all to make the iPad design less distinctive.



What other aspects? The Community Design only had a few drawings on two pages.

The document is available to view here.

Note that they also don't show a Home button.

.

Likely due to Apples incremental registering. Look at the iphone registrations e.g. They have that covered from a brick (really) to a detailed rendering of the phone. And actually, its even worse. They also registered a bunch of similar devices (different shaped home buttons etc).

Check this link:

(hang on, i cant find it right now...)

Edit: I still cant find it (thought i had it bookmarked, but i was wrong. my mac eats bookmarks it seems).

If someone has the link to the guy discussing EU community design registrations, showing Apples incremental registering please share it with me. I'd like to re-bookmark it!

FOUND IT:

read this:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was_Bad

 

[marksman]

Disclaimer: If no year is stated no year is known. May be post-ipad. Its actually quite hard to tell pre-ipad slates from post-ipad slates, so expect errors.

Image

2003.

Image

pbj touch slate - 2005(?)

Image

Sahara i200 (year, anyone?)
Image

Another (yet different) i200...

Image

Available in black...
Image

Bumpers too... (does it say iTablet?)
Image

It did... (TabletKiosk is the manufacturer btw, same as for the Sahara slates)
------ this iTab is a post-ipad release, just showing it for funsies------

The iTab itself is old however, from 2004:

Mom is at Layne's place and just messaged me from the Sahara iTablet, which Layne's school has been reviewing. She likes it -- better than many of the Tablet PCs that she's used. Is it just because it's white? I thought you'd like to see what she IM'd me:

(cant access original article unfortunately, so no idea what she im'd - the following image was next to the text)

Image

docked itablet, 2004.

Image

Another docked Sahara device... (from a 2005 page).

Image

Sahara i213 - picture from 2005, device released 2004 or earlier.
Image

Same device, 2004. (According to reviews, it was quite nice!)

Image

TC1100 - release date anyone?

Image

Motion Computing, LE1600TS (TS was released 2006, not sure if that photo is '06 though).

Image

Same company, different model (m1400). 2004, or earlier.


DO YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE OR IS THAT ENOUGH?

None of those look like the ipad. Do you know what an iPad looks like?

Your post is like saying :

Are the same thing.

You can't just say look I found a 10 lb rectangle with a screen from 2003 so it was there before the iPad.

Why are you spending so much time trying to find things that do not even look like iPads in any way. It is a big waste of time on your part. You are not proving anything. You are looking silly posting lots of pics of things that looking nothing like an iPad.

----------

Which boils down to fashion. Fashion is not, and should not, be something one can have exclusive rights for. Second, that very glass (at times) needs to be there, as it can be used to add functionality (buttons, gestures etc.). Very simple, really.

p.s. do you think someone else should be able to prevent apple from ever introducing these (bezel-interaction) features in its i-line? if not, why should apple be - seeing how they did not even "invent" it.

Oh well, at least you are willing to admit that Apples case boils down to "edge-to-edge" glass.


----------



Seems like an Electrovaya product (they have a whole scribbler line, including that one). Then again, some of these slates came up with a ton of different names, so i really dont know. But yeah, there are more examples like that as well if you dig in to it.
Image
Image

Electrovaya SC4000. Released Jan 2008 (or late 2007).

Something that is 3x as thick, weighs 3x as much and came out 4 years after Apple designed their first similar device?

What is your post evidence of? That people copy Apple? We already know that. It is actually quite clear. Thanks for providing more examples of people poorly copying Apple though.

 

[KnightWRX]

None of those look like the ipad. Do you know what an iPad looks like?

You can't just say look I found a 10 lb rectangle with a screen from 2003 so it was there before the iPad.

This is not about looking like the iPad, it's about looking like the community design registration Apple has. There is no mention of weight in the Community Design registration, so even if someone made a 100 lbs version of it in 2003, it still counts as prior art.

 

[divinox]

None of those look like the ipad. Do you know what an iPad looks like?

I'd say they share most traits with the ipad, which comes as no surprise as they are logical designs given the nature of the slate.

Your post is like saying :

Image

Image

Image

Are the same thing.

In the head of an Apple-devote perhaps.

You can't just say look I found a 10 lb rectangle with a screen from 2003 so it was there before the iPad.

Some people make the claim that there were no such thing before the ipad, obviously that claim is about as wrong as it gets.

Why are you spending so much time trying to find things that do not even look like iPads in any way. It is a big waste of time on your part. You are not proving anything. You are looking silly posting lots of pics of things that looking nothing like an iPad.

Why not? Am i not allowed to spend my time anyway i want?

----------

Something that is 3x as thick, weighs 3x as much and came out 4 years after Apple designed their first similar device?

What is your post evidence of? That people copy Apple? We already know that. It is actually quite clear. Thanks for providing more examples of people poorly copying Apple though.

1) i posted it because someone named it as "russian scribbler 4000", and i have found it under "electrovaya scribbler (SC) 4000". The reason it was posted in first place was to show that there were edge-to-edge glass devices prior to the ipad (someone claimed that was not the case).

2) Couldnt care less if it was 10 times as thick. Apple has no exclusive right to light, thin, devices. Second, electrovaya has been making slates with this overall design since 2003. How they copied Apple is beyond me. Unless youre implying that they used a time machine or something.

 

[papabanana]

Doesnt matter if it sold or not, it shows that the design a) is generic and runs down to fashion, (and possibly b, that the glass is needed to provide certain functionality).

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.

 

[kdarling]

read this:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was_Bad

Yep, I have that article bookmarked as well.

The handheld computer design document we're all talking about was pretty simple... and was renewed once so far in 2009 (they're only good for five years at a time unless renewed)... and the pictures rearranged in 2010.

You can find out a lot by searching the Design database here.

• For owner, put Name Is : Apple Inc
• Then put in some dates: 01/01/2004 to 01/01/2006
• Locarno class: 14, subclass Any
• Sort by Filing Date Ascending.

Lots of fun to search!

 

[papabanana]

2) Couldnt care less if it was 10 times as thick. Apple has no exclusive right to light, thin, devices. Second, electrovaya has been making slates with this overall design since 2003. How they copied Apple is beyond me. Unless youre implying that they used a time machine or something.

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.

----------

Doesn't have to sell at all to make the iPad design less distinctive.



What other aspects? The Community Design only had a few drawings on two pages.

The document is available to view here.

Note that they also don't show a Home button.

.

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.

----------

Doesn't have to sell at all to make the iPad design less distinctive
.

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.

 

[davedude]

Galaxy S is an uglier, laggier version of the iPhone....

This couldn't be further from the truth (although subjective)

I LOVE my iPhone 4, but the Galaxy S2 absolutely spanks the iPhone 4 in performance and flexibility. It's interface is very nice and dark, which is a change from the straining brightness of iOS.

I think it's a sleek phone, too.

But the apps and compatibility of syncing from desktop to phone keeps me with the iPhone.

 

[buddybd]

I LOVE my iPhone 4, but the Galaxy S2 absolutely spanks the iPhone 4 in performance and flexibility.

Obviously, it came out just a 2 months ago I think, it has been almost a year for the iPhone 4. Lets see how S2 compares with iPhone 5/4S.

Highly likely it'll use the same processor though, so other features will play a significant role

 

[Consultant]

Actually they did, in 2006.
Image
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

It's surely a MARKET LEADING product that other companied copied.

That product is also likely to be vaporware / concept design that was not sold in the US. Or it's one of many different designs they put out to see if one gets lucky in the market.

In reality, very few people knows about that product. In contrast, EVERYBODY knows iPad.

The glass+frame look was used for the Russian Scribbler SC4000 (a very cool slate with Wacom digitizer).

It came out in early 2008, so it predates the iPad by two years, but comes after the EU design registration.

View attachment 299757

Ever heard of the iPhone, circa 2007?

 

[papabanana]

Which boils down to fashion. Fashion is not, and should not, be something one can have exclusive rights for. Second, that very glass (at times) needs to be there, as it can be used to add functionality (buttons, gestures etc.). Very simple, really.

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.

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. 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.

p.s. do you think someone else should be able to prevent apple from ever introducing these (bezel-interaction) features in its i-line? if not, why should apple be - seeing how they did not even "invent" it.

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.

Oh well, at least you are willing to admit that Apples case boils down to "edge-to-edge" glass.

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