Apple's Evidence in Samsung Tablet Case Reportedly Flawed

[divinox]

just in.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/german-court-lifts-ban-on-some-european-samsung-galaxy-10-1-sale/

Court realizes booboo after discovery by Webwereld.nl!
court lifts ban on sales of galaxy tab.
may not have authority to impose rule on other countries. .

Called it. Almost feel like buying one just because. Almost. Lets see if i can dig up some external funding for it. I need to study one anyone.

edit: OK, guess i was a wee bit premature. Final decision will be no different though. Just hope the EU will slam Apple with some punitive damages on top of the damages paid to Samsung for lost sales. EU needs a few bn, and Apple clearly needs a spanking.

 

[chagla]

for fanboy's viewing pleasure...

 

[divinox]

This is a great story on Apple and community designs btw. I recommend everyone to read it, to realize how silly this have become.

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

(And no, exploiting and/or abusing the system is not 'playing by the rules' by any standard.)

 

[D4F]

just in.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/german-court-lifts-ban-on-some-european-samsung-galaxy-10-1-sale/

Court realizes booboo after discovery by Webwereld.nl!
court lifts ban on sales of galaxy tab.
may not have authority to impose rule on other countries. .

Finally. I'm off to buy one just because.

 

[KnightWRX]

just in.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/german-court-lifts-ban-on-some-european-samsung-galaxy-10-1-sale/

Court realizes booboo after discovery by Webwereld.nl!
court lifts ban on sales of galaxy tab.
may not have authority to impose rule on other countries. .

The ban was lifted based on Apple maybe making a mistake on the venue for filing their complaint and not the problem in the evidence if you read that closely. That was another mistake they made, Dusseldorf didn't have jurisdiction for the injunction for all of the Europeen Union, Apple needed to file in Spain where the design registration was granted for that.

In other words, the injunction got lifted in the EU everywhere but in Germany based on that.

 

[samcraig]

The same people who want to claim that Apple is way too smart to incorrectly portray the TAB in the document should acknowledge that Apple was either a) not smart enough to file in the right jurisdictions OR b) did so knowingly and falsely. Right?

Of course this will just get turned around to be all about the court system where it was filed instead of the submission

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

The thing that has always bugged me about this is that Apple refuses to show the real home screen and continues to show the App Drawer. On Android the real home screen can be whatever you want it to be. It can look like iOS, a widget and some icons, all icons, a dock and widgets, or just all widgets. I guess what Apple is really suing Samsung for is giving consumers the choice.

 

[KnightWRX]

The same people who want to claim that Apple is way too smart to incorrectly portray the TAB in the document should acknowledge that Apple was either a) not smart enough to file in the right jurisdictions OR b) did so knowingly and falsely. Right?

Of course this will just get turned around to be all about the court system where it was filed instead of the submission

They filed in Dusseldorf because that is because the most plaintiff friendly court they could find in the EU. Kinda of like Texas Eastern District is for patent complaints.

 

[Apple...]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

The thing that has always bugged me about this is that Apple refuses to show the real home screen and continues to show the App Drawer. On Android the real home screen can be whatever you want it to be. It can look like iOS, a widget and some icons, all icons, a dock and widgets, or just all widgets. I guess what Apple is really suing Samsung for is giving consumers the choice.

Why would they want it to look like iOS? Then they'd be in more trouble then they already are.

 

[samcraig]

They filed in Dusseldorf because that is because the most plaintiff friendly court they could find in the EU. Kinda of like Texas Eastern District is for patent complaints.

I know. I was being snarky

 

[zacman]

The Duesseldorf court today lifted the EU wide sales stop against Korean Samsung as it has serious doubts if it has jurisdiction.

The sales stop now only affects Germany. This has happened even before the hearing on August 25th so it is a major drawback for Apple.

More here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-tab-101-injunction-suspended-for.html

 

[Oletros]

Apple should have hired Samsung to make it look more like the iPad. They are good at that.

I am sure Samsung is firing the engineer who screwed up and didn't make it look more like the iPad.

Trying to flame?

 

[SockRolid]

Why not just bring the judge an actual Tab?

Exhibit A should be an actual Galaxy Tab 10.1. Not just a photo.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why would they want it to look like iOS? Then they'd be in more trouble then they already are.

They don't. It's just Apple and some people around these parts say they made it look like iOS when in fact it doesn't.

 

[SockRolid]

Got your home screens right here

The thing that has always bugged me about this is that Apple refuses to show the real home screen and continues to show the App Drawer. On Android the real home screen can be whatever you want it to be. It can look like iOS, a widget and some icons, all icons, a dock and widgets, or just all widgets. I guess what Apple is really suing Samsung for is giving consumers the choice.

Two words that go together very well: Fugly Android.

http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/

 

[Oletros]

Two words that go together very well: Fugly Android.

http://fuglyandroid.tumblr.com/

Yes, because every home screen is like the ones in that site

 

[benthewraith]

After the judge is forced to overturn the verdict and allow the Tab to be sold, the CEO of Samsung should say ..

"and another thing...Steve Jobs : Go F'k yourself and find some other place to provide 75% of the parts for your products"

Isn't Steve still on a medical leave of absence?

 

[Sankersizzle]

Exhibit A should be an actual Galaxy Tab 10.1. Not just a photo.

Yeah, I don't know why no one has thought of this yet...

 

[pr5owner]

here you go, a REAL picture of the tab in the correct proportions and home screens

 

[BaldiMac]

Image

here you go, a REAL picture of the tab in the correct proportions and home screens

Deception! The Tab is actually only 0.51 inches longer than the iPad. Your picture was obviously falsified to deceive us all!

Seriously, though. There is no difference in the picture you posted and the picture that everyone is complaining about with respect to the actual design elements that Apple claims as unique to their product in their design document (according to published reports).

 

[divinox]

Deception! The Tab is actually only 0.51 inches longer than the iPad. Your picture was obviously falsified to deceive us all!

Seriously, though. There is no difference in the picture you posted and the picture that everyone is complaining about with respect to the actual design elements that Apple claims as unique to their product in their design document (according to published reports).

Thing is though, Chanel can register their 2.55 design and prevent others from using it. They cannot, however, prevent others from making black quilted handbags (even if they are of similar dimensions). That is too generic of a claim, and not what design registrations are for (not that i have read up on rulings other than ones in national court, but still).

Design registrations are 99% about preventing fakes, and 1% about highly specific (non generic) techniques (that are crucial for the overall design) that in some ways are comparable to trade marks (one of the cases i've read over the years covered just that).

I truly fail to see how Apples filings qualify, and i hope im right in saying that neither will the court. No one other than Apple should be allowed to make an ipad, but as we all know a Galaxy or a Xoom is anything but that. Similarities due to minimalistic design are just that, no one can have exclusive rights to minimalism - and once devices are on (and we all should be able to agree that devices are intended to be in "on-mode"), these similarities due to minimalism quickly goes away.

Before i leave for now, imagine this scenario if it was about leather jackets. Im quite sure there are design registrations for leather jackets - still you can walk in to pretty much every store and fine one (at least when they are in fashion), and with few exceptions they will all look pretty much the same (all following the trend).

Jesus christ, could you ever see anyone do this with say, a t-shirt? I bet the t-shirt "revolutionized" something back in the days, its a pretty neat garment. I can also safely bet that there (just like the case with leather jackets) are design registrations on t-shirts. "Strangely enough", you don't see many t-shirt producers hitting at other t-shirt producers "for selling a thin, short-sleeved shirt with various prints on chest". Why? Because that is not how the system (is intended to) works.

 

[BaldiMac]

Thing is though, Chanel can register their 2.55 design and prevent others from using it. They cannot, however, prevent others from making black quilted handbags (even if they are of similar dimensions). That is too generic of a claim, and not what design registrations are for (not that i have read up on rulings other than ones in national court, but still).

Design registrations are 99% about preventing fakes, and 1% about highly specific (non generic) techniques (that are crucial for the overall design) that in some ways are comparable to trade marks (one of the cases i've read over the years covered just that).

I truly fail to see how Apples filings qualify, and i hope im right in saying that neither will the court. No one other than Apple should be allowed to make an ipad, but as we all know a Galaxy or a Xoom is anything but just that. Similarities due to minimalistic design are just that, no one can have exclusive rights to minimalism - and once devices are on (and we all should be able to agree that devices are intended to be in "on-mode"), these similarities due to minimalism quickly goes away.

Before i leave for now, imagine this scenario if it was about leather jackets. Im quite sure there are design registrations for leather jackets - still you can walk in to pretty much every store and fine one (at least when they are in fashion), and with few exceptions they will all look pretty much the same (all following the trend).

Jesus christ, could you ever see anyone do this with say, a t-shirt? I bet the t-shirt "revolutionized" something back in the days, its a pretty neat garment. I can also safely bet that there (just like the case with leather jackets) are design registrations on t-shirts. "Strangely enough", you don't see many t-shirt producers hitting at other t-shirt producers "for selling a thin, short-sleeved shirt with various prints on chest". Why? Because that is not how the system (is intended to) works.

I agree with you completely that Apple's claims seem way to generic. I do not think they will/should win this case unless there is more to the issue than has been reported. My point in this thread has been than they make no claims to aspect ratio, so the outrage over the mis-proportioned photos seems misguided.

 

[divinox]

I agree with you completely that Apple's claims seem way to generic. I do not think they will/should win this case unless there is more to the issue than has been reported. My point in this thread has been than they make no claims to aspect ratio, so the outrage over the mis-proportioned photos seems misguided.

I disagree. We are outraged at Apples distortion of reality in the court of law. And, we will be even more outraged if said court of law accepts registrations of generic designs.

BTW: Not making any claims with regards to aspect ratio, in my opinion, just makes the registration even more generic, and thus less worthy of being upheld.

Second, one could argue that aspect ratios can be derived from drawings. This is a dead-end though, as design (or pattern, as we call them) registrations protect more than just the explicit; e.g., i cant make a Chanel-purse on my own, just slightly changing the elements in the registration. It would still classify as a fake (i can however make a handbag that has somewhat similar look-and-feel, as these elements are generic).

In that sense you are correct. Apple will not lose the claim on AR, they will lose it on the design being generic (cf. someone registering a leather jacket, or a t-shirt).

 

[BaldiMac]

I disagree. We are outraged at Apples distortion of reality in the court of law. And, we will be even more outraged if said court of law accepts registrations of generic designs.

Sure, but if the "distortion of reality" is irrelevant to the claim, then we don't know why Apple did it. Maybe they did it for illustrative purposes to show the proportionality of the design elements. We don't know if Apple was trying to pass it off as reality. Seems pretty silly considering the case will inevitably involve the two actual devices sitting side by side in the court room.

BTW: Not making any claims with regards to aspect ratio, in my opinion, just makes the registration even more generic, and thus less worthy of being upheld.

I disagree. If Apple's claims were actually unique (I don't believe they are), I would think a widescreen version of the iPad should be able to fall under the same design registration as the current iPad.

Second, one could argue that aspect ratios can be derived from drawings. This is a dead-end though, as design (or pattern, as we call them) registrations protect more than just the explicit; e.g., i cant make a Chanel-purse on my own, just slightly changing the elements in the registration. It would still classify as a fake (i can however make a handbag that has somewhat similar look-and-feel, as these elements are generic).

In that sense you are correct. Apple will not lose the claim on AR, they will lose it on the design being generic (cf. someone registering a leather jacket, or a t-shirt).

I agree, based on the information that's been reported so far.

 

[yg17]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Why would they want it to look like iOS? Then they'd be in more trouble then they already are.

They don't want it to look like iOS. An Android tablet fresh out of the box looks nothing like iOS. But, if a user wants to for some reason, they can get rid of all of the widgets and put down a grid of icons on their home screen and make it look like iOS. That's up to the user, and Apple is cherry picking screenshots when they claim that Android is a rip off of iOS.