Mmm, injuction in Germany was not based on resemblance to iPad, but to the community design. A community design so general that even doesn't have a home button or a camera
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 Wins Injunction Blocking Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mmm, injuction in Germany was not based on resemblance to iPad, but to the community design. A community design so general that even doesn't have a home button or a camera
http://youtu.be/Gq-e0getf4M
Whos copying who again?
I'm a huge Apple fan myself, but come on... don't be so blind.
Whos copying who again?
I'm a huge Apple fan myself, but come on... don't be so blind.
Not sure why so many people view this as Apple steamrolling over "competitors" with unfair tactics. Samsung is an enormous entity that has the capacity to - and does - hire powerful law firms to represent it in court. Their lawyers undoubtedly presented a capable defense in this matter and the court decided in Apple's favor. There's a lot that isn't reported in detail in the news, but it's a safe bet that both sides were capably represented and the court's decision was fully informed - unlike the opinions in this forum.
mmm....let me see, Australian judges and a 12 year old who made a youtube video, who should i believe???
you have no clue what you're talking about. Samsung is a mom and pop organization with limited funds who were simply overpowered and destroyed by the bully Apple. They stood no chance. I believe they had one lawyer on their team, who was working pro bono since Samsung was ruled an indigent corporation. Apple is the worst of the worst when it comes to corporate bullying. Taking on such a lowly corporation like Samsung.
Your seriously trying to use that video to prove a point?
Do you believe the points in the video are wrong? Or are you simply choosing to ignore them? I'll go with the latter.
Yes, your point is correct that the injunction was due to infringement of Apple's community design, not the iPad itself.
The Australian Judge issued the Injunction because she felt there was a prima facie case that Samsung had infringed two of Apple's patents, which cover multi-touch and the heuristics that interpret a users actions.
A prima facie case is going to be very difficult for Samsung to overcome: The Judge is essentially saying that the matter is self-evident that the Samsung products infringe Apple's Australian patents.
From a practical standpoint this means that Samsung is going to be unable to sell the Galaxy in Australia under any circumstances until next year at the earliest - missing the critical Christmas selling period. Even were Samsung to prevail, it is probable that the device would be obsolete by the time such a determination were made.
Once again I have to commend Apple's legal strategy: They have now had Judges in three separate jurisdictions around the world rule against Samsung on critical questions of IP infringement. And these rulings come at a key time as Apple's (most important) case against Samsung in Northern California moves forward. And a California court cannot now be accused of "favoritism" if they rule in Apple's favor.
Secondly, the Patents that Apple has asserted against Samsung in Australia essentially give them the ability to act against any Android device - not just the Samsung models.
Lastly, I think its worth considering how Samsung and Android got themselves into the tenuous legal position they are now in. IMHO, both Google and Samsung rushed their products to market. They cut corners in their attempt to match Apple in the marketplace: That's why Google is looking at billions of damages to Oracle. Its why Samsung and HTC are already paying hundreds of millions in damages to Nokia and Microsoft. And its why Samsung phones and tablets are being banned from sale around the world.
Read that last paragraph again: Oracle, Nokia, Microsoft. Its not just Apple who has had their IP ripped off by Android.
A prima facie case is going to be very difficult for Samsung to overcome: The Judge is essentially saying that the matter is self-evident that the Samsung products infringe Apple's Australian patents.
From a practical standpoint this means that Samsung is going to be unable to sell the Galaxy in Australia under any circumstances until next year at the earliest - missing the critical Christmas selling period. Even were Samsung to prevail, it is probable that the device would be obsolete by the time such a determination were made.
Once again I have to commend Apple's legal strategy: They have now had Judges in three separate jurisdictions around the world rule against Samsung on critical questions of IP infringement. And these rulings come at a key time as Apple's (most important) case against Samsung in Northern California moves forward. And a California court cannot now be accused of "favoritism" if they rule in Apple's favor.
Secondly, the Patents that Apple has asserted against Samsung in Australia essentially give them the ability to act against any Android device - not just the Samsung models.
Lastly, I think its worth considering how Samsung and Android got themselves into the tenuous legal position they are now in. IMHO, both Google and Samsung rushed their products to market. They cut corners in their attempt to match Apple in the marketplace: That's why Google is looking at billions of damages to Oracle. Its why Samsung and HTC are already paying hundreds of millions in damages to Nokia and Microsoft. And its why Samsung phones and tablets are being banned from sale around the world.
Read that last paragraph again: Oracle, Nokia, Microsoft. Its not just Apple who has had their IP ripped off by Android.
1. Google is not suing Apple about features so that video is not relevant.
2. The features that are said to be copied from android... how do you know that Apple had no been working on these already? Everyone knows Apple spends a lot of time working out every last detail and does not release stuff until they know it is ready. It doesn't matter who is first to market with the feature... it matters who was working on it first. Maybe that is why we don't see Google going after Apple. But the point is that we don't know. That is between Google and Apple. We are talking about Samsung and Apple.
3. That video is still not relevant to the topic.
4. I trust a bunch of judges a lot more then a bunch of fandroid online armchair quarterbacks.
5. I just checked and that video still has nothing to do with Samsung copying Apples design.
What millions are paying Samsung or HTC to Nokia?
What billions have to pay Google to Oracle?
And in respect to any Android device, I think you believe too much in Florian Mueller posts.
P.S. And prima facia doesn't means that it's evident and difficult to win the case in case of the defendant, it only says that the case can continue and go to a full trial
prima facie means the defendant would have to provide strong proof that what they're saying is true because based on preliminary "at face" evidence, the other side has pretty much proven their case. Samsung needs to regroup and come up with something new other then Kubrik's movies is what this ruling says.
It doesn't, but people here keep bashing Samsung for "copying" Apple. The video is merely to show that competitors will always borrow ideas from one another if they feel it is a good one.
This pretty much can give people that impression: http://allthingsd.com/20110923/what-are-apples-icons-doing-on-samsungs-wall-of-apps/.
people that like yourself aren't smart enough to realize that is not a Samsung store but a display within a mobile store, the Apple display is right next to it, the wall is simply there to show popular mobile apps
guess you might also be the type of person that actually does accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab thinking it's an iPad
Samsung Mom and Pop? I didn't know Mom and Pop companies had net incomes of 21 Billion dollars and over 300 billion in assets.
Simple Question:
Are Apple going to attempt to block Microsoft from Selling Windows 8 tablets next year?
Seeing as how they will be thin rectangular devices, rounded corners, thin, with a sheet of touch sensitive glass over the front. The same as Apple's iPad.
Are Apple going to attempt to block Microsoft from Selling Windows 8 tablets next year?
Seeing as how they will be thin rectangular devices, rounded corners, thin, with a sheet of touch sensitive glass over the front. The same as Apple's iPad.
haha sarcasm! damn i guess i have to put /s at the end of all my posts...
It is a Samsung store, publicized by Samsung staff
scroll down on this for the press release:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/09/anal...s-store-copied-safari-iphone-app-store-icons/
He's being sarcastic but probably didn't add smiley because it's obviously false.
Nope, they didn't. But that's ok, since they don't have such broad/general patents on these concepts. They have a few precise patents on precise gestures used in precise contexts. This is what won them a single claim in the Dutch court, something Samsung has now fixed.
Only if Microsoft Windows 8 infringes upon Apple's IP. But it seems unlikely.
For one thing, Apple and Microsoft have entered into a number of cross-licensing agreements that allow them to use each other's IP. But, more importantly, Microsoft's UI people go to great lengths to design and implement their own unique interface. And Microsoft has an excellent legal IP team to keep them on the straight and narrow.
As I noted above: Google and Samsung got themselves into legal trouble because they cut corners rushing products to market. Microsoft has been playing the software game far too long to make the same mistake.