Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales in U.S.

This is great news IMO. A company's investment in innovation and ideas should not be easy fodder for theft. A Samsung win would be discouraging for investment in new ideas by any company, not just Apple, if precedent is established that the competition can easily capitalize on reverse engineering or cloning someone else's successful idea. There is no risk in that type of product development/release for the copycats.
 
notabadname said:
This is great news IMO. A company's investment in innovation and ideas should not be easy fodder for theft. A Samsung win would be discouraging for investment in new ideas by any company, not just Apple, if precedent is established that the competition can easily capitalize on reverse engineering or cloning someone else's successful idea. There is no risk in that type of product development/release for the copycats.
Click to expand...
I think American companies are more worried that they might be in danger if they create something that is even remotely similar to what Apple has released.
 
Bezetos said:
Let's look at something that was released by HP.

Image

OMG it looks soooo much like the iPad. A rectangular shape, rounded corners, enough metallic bezel to provide a comfortable grip, similar width around the display - everything that Apple has invented. And that HP logo where the home button normally sits? Blasphemy. Volume buttons on the side? iPad did that! Conveniently placed headphone socket? A Silver back? Thank god they didn't steal iPad's USB adapter. I feel you Northgrove:



The only problem is, the device above, the TC1100, was released 7 years before the iPad.

Please, explain to me why Apple think they've invented a rectangle and rounded corners.

While you're at it, please explain to me why Apple fans genuinely think Apple is fighting to "protect innovation" instead of actually realising that Apple is simply a patent troll.
Click to expand...

That doesn't look like the iPad.

Not sure what point you are trying to prove.
 
When you can't compete, sue.
So, if their stuff isn't competitive and it sucks, why sue? :confused:

Take your time, I'll be here all week.
 
Bubba Satori said:
When you can't compete, sue.
So, if their stuff isn't competitive and it sucks, why sue? :confused:

Take your time, I'll be here all week.
Click to expand...

Why not?

If you see a cat on your lawn and it doesn't do a ****, doesn't mean you should keep letting on until it does do one.
 
Bezetos said:
Let's look at something that was released by HP.

Image

OMG it looks soooo much like the iPad. A rectangular shape, rounded corners, enough metallic bezel to provide a comfortable grip, similar width around the display - everything that Apple has invented. And that HP logo where the home button normally sits? Blasphemy. Volume buttons on the side? iPad did that! Conveniently placed headphone socket? A Silver back? Thank god they didn't steal iPad's USB adapter. I feel you Northgrove:



The only problem is, the device above, the TC1100, was released 7 years before the iPad.

Please, explain to me why Apple think they've invented a rectangle and rounded corners.

While you're at it, please explain to me why Apple fans genuinely think Apple is fighting to "protect innovation" instead of actually realising that Apple is simply a patent troll.
Click to expand...

Completely true and unbiased.

If you look at even tablet PC's that where used in hospitals and military and such even way before that HP tablet, you can see the form factor has been used way way way longer.

Im not one for copyright etc (hell im a musician, if I have any songs that sound similar to another I change it, also if ones similar to mine i Let them know.. just incase!)

but really apple saying they designed the exterior ipad (which is their main gripe) is pretty lame..


Regardless of that, going after Samsung for the ANDROID OS being similar in aspects.. is pretty bloody stupid, and I'm sure Samsung will challenge that part relatively easy. The design's a toughie..

But I think action will be matched in EU + Australia for Samsung's favour though.

It's a silly 'war' at the end of the day. They should get on with it! Competition brings forth Innovation! So innovate and just plain stomp your opponents rather then bitch and moan that one company used the idea of their rival!


Sorry a big wall of text, just want to get my feelings across.. I know this is a pro apple board but surely people would prefer innovation rather than a stale market due to them just duking it out in courts instead!!!

(if you want stale look at the CPU market. AMD's bulldozer performed pretty poor compared to even sandybridge now intel's taking it's sweet ass time)
 
MonkeySee.... said:
Why not?

If you see a cat on your lawn and it doesn't do a ****, doesn't mean you should keep letting on until it does do one.
Click to expand...

I'm a live and let live kind of guy.

Analogies, btw, are like chocolates.
Some are better than others.
Keeping working on it. You'll get better, maybe. :D

In the end, you can't have it both ways
If everything except Apple sucks,
what's the point of suing their cra**y imitators?
Which is it?
 
Bezetos said:
Let's look at something that was released by HP.

Image

OMG it looks soooo much like the iPad. A rectangular shape, rounded corners, enough metallic bezel to provide a comfortable grip, similar width around the display - everything that Apple has invented. And that HP logo where the home button normally sits? Blasphemy. Volume buttons on the side? iPad did that! Conveniently placed headphone socket? A Silver back? Thank god they didn't steal iPad's USB adapter. I feel you Northgrove:



The only problem is, the device above, the TC1100, was released 7 years before the iPad.

Please, explain to me why Apple think they've invented a rectangle and rounded corners.

While you're at it, please explain to me why Apple fans genuinely think Apple is fighting to "protect innovation" instead of actually realising that Apple is simply a patent troll.
Click to expand...


Can't argue that patent wars are tiresome. However the difference between being influenced by a design and technology and blatant copying is in my opinion apparent with the Samsung product which I believe infringes on the product image and packaging as well. That was their mistake as is apparent in the picture comparison. No court will impede a manufacturer for being influenced by innovative tech, but when a company emulates so closely the shape, color tech, peripherals , packaging and even the photography and lighting in the packaging of a product, thats where the court drew the line with Samsung as it should. This is why the legalese argument could be made that the Samsung product could be mistaken as an Apple product at first glance. One does not see blatant copying by HP or other manufacturers to the extent of Samsung, so other arguments made of infringing Apple based only on tech influence is not usually enough in the court's mind to justify an injunction.
 
Last edited:
Bubba Satori said:
I'm a live and let live kind of guy.

Analogies, btw, are like chocolates.
Some are better than others.
Keeping working on it. You'll get better, maybe. :D

In the end, you can't have it both ways
If everything except Apple sucks,
what's the point of suing their cra**y imitators?
Which is it?
Click to expand...

Awww. I thought it was a good one :D
 
KnightWRX said:
Motorola, Samsung, HTC... Hum, yeah, it's pretty much everybody. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Help me out here...I'm willing to be proven wrong but I can't find any examples of those using Google.

Patent lawsuits, sure, but as we're talking about the 'look and feel' lawsuits those clearly don't count. I'm just on my iPhone so maybe my Googling isn't a good as it could be. If you have articles about these other companies facing this type of trial I'd love to see them because it's something I wasn't aware of.
 
Judge Koh had no choice, even though she originally ruled against it.

Back in December she had denied this same injunction concerning four Apple patents, most of which were related to phones. She specifically denied the tablet injunction on the grounds that the Apple design patent could likely be invalid due to prior art. E.g. the 1994 Knight-Ridder tablet concept (see around 2:20 in this video).

In May, an Appeals Court upheld three of her four decisions, but disagreed about her design patent reasoning. Among other things, they noted that the Knight-Ridder concept didn't have totally even borders (one was slightly larger). So they remanded the case back to her court and she had to issue the injunction.

However, the ban doesn't affect tablets already in stores, or the redesigned Tab 10.1ii model, so the fight is mostly symbolic at this point (thus the rather small cash amount that Apple has to put up as collateral).

.
 
Last edited:
kdarling said:
However, the ban doesn't affect tablets already in stores, or the redesigned Tab 10.1ii model, so the fight is mostly symbolic at this point (thus the incredibly small cash amount that Apple has to put up as collateral).
Click to expand...

A paragraph that should lead every article about this. But of course, that's not exciting enough.

It seems like the less something matters the more press it gets. And, of course, vise versa.
 
Apple likes to form single purpose vehicle LLCs. They should form one to run ads bringing to the public's attention, the legal rulings and orders of infringement in the countries they legally can, to the degree the legal process has progressed to either rulings or orders.

A SPV would not be Apple itself, and would be free to discuss the shortcomings of the infringing products as compared to the products they are designed to resemble visually.

It would also be free to use dramatizations of prior infringing examples to show visual similarity almost always equates to low quality or in some cases physical harm.

It is cheaper and also more effective than litigation, but in this case is coincident with it. Lawsuits alone are unsatisfying. Let a SPV spike the ball.

It will seem downright polite in a time of political ad noise!

Rocketman
 
AP_piano295 said:
Indeed there must be millions of way to design a tablet :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

It’s a good argument that a tablet can only look a certain way, and since Apple was the first one to the market with the iPad, all other tablets would invariably look similar to the iPad. However, how do you explain the fact that the user interface is so much similar to the iOS? And how do you explain that Samsung's packaging is made so that it looks almost identical to Apple’s? There are definitely many ways to design the user interface and the packaging. Android allows OEMs to put any user interface they want on top of the OS they get for free from Google. OEMs can go with a stock Android user interface, or they can design their own. Samsung decided to rip off iOS user interface. There are literally thousands of ways to design packaging. Apple’s packing is truly innovative, and the experience with the product that a new owner gets starts with unpacking the product. I remember unpacking my first MacBook Air in early 2008, and I remember the awe of seeing how well the product was packaged. I had never seen such precision and detail vis-a-vis packaging - something that just gets tossed away most of the time. Samsung replicated this because they market their products under the “just as good as Apple’s, but cheaper” mantra. They decided to copy everything, including the first experience that the owner gets from the packaging. This, in and of itself, serves as the proof that Samsung was stealing Apple’s intellectual property by blatantly copying Apple’s products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back