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.
German Injunction Against Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 Upheld
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hmmm...
I am sure all these also violate the community design. Why didn't apple drag them to the court? i am sure there are plenty more tabs who look/feel similar.
i need to register a 50-inch rectangle and a straight line, and also probably get a circle registered.
I am sure all these also violate the community design. Why didn't apple drag them to the court? i am sure there are plenty more tabs who look/feel similar.
i need to register a 50-inch rectangle and a straight line, and also probably get a circle registered.
Attachments
Yeah - they brought us casual **** like Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies. The pinnacle of gaming definitely.
Given the tremendous failure of the Nintendo Wii and the DS Nintendo must shiver to their bones. Yes, the 3DS sucks - so what, it's a product of arrogance. Wii U got a warm response and I guess Nintendo will work some things out.
And though you may be a real Apple follower you simply have no clue about gaming. I'm off to Banoi now - wake me up, when games of that quality hit iOS.
And no - Infinity Blade and the Rage demo don't count. Or do you think they have the depth of Zelda or Uncharted (the lead games for the current and upcoming mobile platforms)?
Ill gladly pay 100 usd for a wicked Zelda, i wouldnt pay a single buck for angry birds. But yeah... like LTD said, Nintendo must be shivering... :- )
(in fact, if it was truly amazing, i would gladly the price of an ipad to play zelda... it would surely be worth it)
----------
Apple has it all covered. They registered a generic pad. No dimensions, no ratios. Anything thinner than thick, with edge to edge glass and a bezel infringes. Sad but true.
My household's Panasonic Plasma TV has a brushed aluminium-like bezel. EDIT: It's actually glossy.
I don't watch TV much nowadays.I guess Apple could sue TV manufacturers as they clearly violate the community design, as they are rectangular slabs with a screen on top.
Why Samsung? Not ASUS, RIM or HP? Maybe because Samsung's tablets are the most viable contenders to the Apple iPad. RIM's tablet is more iPad-esque than Sammy's. I like the iPad and the Galaxy but I somewhat prefer the latter device.
My household's Panasonic Plasma TV has a brushed aluminium-like bezel. EDIT: It's actually glossy.
I guess Apple could sue TV manufacturers as they clearly violate the community design, as they are rectangular slabs with a screen on top.
Why Samsung? Not ASUS, RIM or HP? Maybe because Samsung's tablets are the most viable contenders to the Apple iPad. RIM's tablet is more iPad-esque than Sammy's. I like the iPad and the Galaxy but I somewhat prefer the latter device.
I got a panasonic too... a rarity viera. rarity in the sense that it has a matte finish (god i hate glossy). as for brushed alu, sadly, that is almost as close as you get to matte these days (samsung also has a black brushed one, covered with a glass panel of course... but thats like the most matte ive seen as of late).
I'd say exactly that. Which is why this feels way more like killing competition rather than protecting their design. Guess i should thank Apple for constantly reminding me why i will never take money out of my own product towards an Apple device (i do like their laptops though, but those are bought with money that arent really mine to begin with).
I guess you don't read much, do you? They probably have more patents than they can count. And, they already have quite a few counter-claims against Apple:
ITC: investigation no. 337-TA-794
District of Delaware: (case no. 1:11-cv-00573)
Mannheim: case 7 O 247/11
UK High Court of Justice: HC 11 CO 2180
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris: case no. 11/10464
Tribunale di Milano: ??
Tokyo District Court: 2 separate cases
Seoul Central District Court: case no. 2011 Kahap 39552
[In the California case] Some are so highly technical/essential that Apple is saying "Samsung has improperly used patents that it claims to be essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard ('UMTS'). So, you know that Apple knows there is noway getting around those. FRAND is the issue that they raised, which relates to certain business practices for holding key technological patents. Irony is that Samsung will probably try to say that these patents are not essential for tele-communication and thus try get an injunction instead of licensing to apple.
Ignoring the rest, in regards to price, seeing as Apple like to HEAVILY over charge for it's products, the other tablets you can buy are only priced to match the market price Apple set in the first place.
However, my brother has a Samsung LCD TV for his Xbox and I can see myself on its bezel.
Feel free to look through the database yourself but it appears that minimalist designs for LCD screens, also need to include the stand, or any other attachment associated with it. The iPad design is agreed minimal, but not too dissimilar to what they are currently disputing with Samsung.
http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/QPLUS/databases/searchRCD.en.do
Search for - 000181607-0001 to see the iPad
The Design for the iPad in the Database, dates back to 2004, and shows no attached equipment in the initial design. (No stand, pedestal, or mounting points). The design is also listed as a "handheld computer", not a display, or computer system.
One could also wonder how this minimalist design from LG was accepted in 2011. Looks like many LCD TVs I see at Best Buy or other places.
but.... note the little kickstand in the back to hold it up.
Search under - 001868787-0001
I am not saying that Apple is right in their case, but I do understand how and why the feel they have a case. 2004 was a long time ago in computer terms. It also pre-dates the iPhone.
Looks glossy to me, albeit not piano glossy perhapsImage This is the model I have. I think it's matte.
However, my brother has a Samsung LCD TV for his Xbox and I can see myself on its bezel.
Mine (read: my girlfriends). As matte as the black macbook after a few years of wear and tear :- )
(note exactly the same, but as close as i can be bothered to find at this time of night - i.e. 4am)
----------
Everything gets accepted as long as you pay the fee.
Anyhow, as far as that monitor goes i'd say it has some validity regardless of the kick-stand. See for example the element at the bottom. It is distinct, it does something "more" than just being a frame. Similarly, i would never argue the validity of an imac design registration (new one, the white one is arguable). As long as you add something distinct (in short, something you dont need to add) you should get protection.
I am not sure that is 100% correct, though is hard to get details from their FAQ. Regardless, there is an Invalidity procedure to dispute submitted designs which can be it thrown out by prior design holders. It appears that this system is flawed in similar ways to our US Patent system. It appears it is upto the design holder to make a claim.
I don't agree. It is vague, plain and simple. Quite like the submission by Apple for the iPad. I would even go as far as saying that LG design submission looks similar to this older Sony TV, with simply a changed stand.
I am also not sure what you mean by the bottom section "doing more", but, to be clear, coverage and protection only applies to outward appearances, not function.
http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/RCD/design.en.do
If the bottom section contained buttons, or some kind of input device, it would need to be covered under a patent, not a design protection.
I still hold to my recommendation of checking out their database for other items. There are a few "Tablet Computers", and "Handheld Computers" that have been registered. Some have minor similarities to the iPad, but in many ways, have distinct differences that make them unique (buttons, mounting points, or trim).
There is even one from LG that I am amazed Apple isn't currently posting an Invalidity claim against based on their current battle with Samsung!
I'm finding these anti apple arguments stranger and stranger. I feels like talking to a bunch of nut jobs. Are these people living in the same world that everyone else is?
I get on the train and nearly everyone's got an iPhone or an iPad etc.. Angry birds is the biggest mobile game ever, everyone out here has used or owns one of these devices. Apples stock has grown like 300% over the last few years, the company has more money in the bank than the US government! It's competitors are having to change long held strategies, some are even dying just because the Market has changed so fast.
Yet we've got a bunch of dudes out here who think apple have done nothing innovative at all. Nothing disruptive, nothing that can or should be legally protected, nothing worthy of any note that distinguishes them from their competitors. These people think that same world in gadgets and mobile that exists today existed before the iPhone. The premise is that if apple didn't make the iPhone and iPad the whole digital landscape would be exactly as it is now.
I'm like ... Wow.. You guys... I always thought I knew what delusional was.. But this is the next level of delusion. Congratulations!!
I get on the train and nearly everyone's got an iPhone or an iPad etc.. Angry birds is the biggest mobile game ever, everyone out here has used or owns one of these devices. Apples stock has grown like 300% over the last few years, the company has more money in the bank than the US government! It's competitors are having to change long held strategies, some are even dying just because the Market has changed so fast.
Yet we've got a bunch of dudes out here who think apple have done nothing innovative at all. Nothing disruptive, nothing that can or should be legally protected, nothing worthy of any note that distinguishes them from their competitors. These people think that same world in gadgets and mobile that exists today existed before the iPhone. The premise is that if apple didn't make the iPhone and iPad the whole digital landscape would be exactly as it is now.
I'm like ... Wow.. You guys... I always thought I knew what delusional was.. But this is the next level of delusion. Congratulations!!
I would not be surprised to see them coming. Apple could be doing this just to see what type of BS they can get away with. I would fully expect to see Apple abuse the courts and strong arm using its deep pockets to fight dirty.
Based on everything i read thus far, it is. You file, pay the fee, done. You see, (i think that) when they implemented the system they didnt take patent trolling into consideration...
It is vague indeed, why - in my opinion - the only noteworthy element is the "non-vague", i.e. the design element at the device very bottom (and to some extent the design of the stand). The rest, should for obvious reasons, not be protectable in any way.
Not sure how to explain "more". Ill try to examplify. If Apple made dog-eared one corner of the ipad, that would be "more". If you decide to place a end to end crescent on the bottom part of your tv's bezel, that is "more". clear enough?
addendum: i forgot about the soundbar, and its natural (read: traditional) placement below the screen. with that in mind, the shape indeed becomes way less protectable. I just saw it as some funky bezel design. (i blame the beer).
I don't think anyone here saying that. Well, maybe a couple. But they're idiots.
Yes. Apple did catch lightning in a bottle with the iDevices. No one is doubting that they completely and extremely changed their respective markets, aren't doubting their success, and aren't doubting their quality. It was a revolutionary product from a sales perspective. One that brought in tons of people who would otherwise ignore smartphones and tablets. To think otherwise would be...yup...pretty damn delusional.
What we are arguing is that the iPad wasn't invented in a vacuum, and wasn't a revolutionary product from a pure tech perspective. There were phones that had capacitive touchscreens before the iPhone, and thin, somewhat minimalist tablets out before the iPad. Just because Apple was one of the first companies to create a reliable, and successful smartphone/tablet/blah, doesn't mean that they should have exclusive rights to concepts they themselves aped from someone else.
Because Apple has a thin tablet out, does that mean no other company can make a tablet as thin, if not thinner? Of course not. Technology has a tendency to miniaturize over time.
Because Apple has a minimalist tablet out, does that mean no other company is allowed to forego buttons on their bezel? Well, considering how much more capable and sensitive capacitive touchscreens are these days, you could argue that it's only a matter of time before tablets and phones begin using UI buttons for actions normally activated by a physical key. It's the natural march of technology. Just because Apple stepped in and was one of the first to promote a successful product using said technology, doesn't mean it should stop solely for their benefit.
This can go on and on and on. But in the end, well...hell, I'm already bored of arguing a point that's already been argued better elsewhere. What's worse, is I'm pretty sure I'll be saying it again 3 days from now when another lawsuit comes up.
Last edited:
Challenge: find 3 people in the last 20 news article that has said anything remotely close to the opposite of the bold-faced.
p.s. straw-men are quite 80's.
Wait, what does Apple's innovation have to do with the story here which is about a granted Community Design that seems quite too generic for the market's own good ?
Because the tab 10.1 had Apple scared sh.itless. My friend has one and I played with it and its amazing. Screen is amazing, its fast, and so friggen thin!
I totally agree. The patent laws have gotten so out to hand that it is not gaining common people who elects the politicians. Sadly, it is all about lobbyism and corporate business. If you are interested in this, google inventor "Håkan Lans". He has invented several things such as computer color graphics and STDMA transponders and has been ********ted by courts in the US and Sweden for technicalities, just because he has been naive regarding the jurisprudence. The law does not protect the innovator, it only protect companies with a decent legal department. The law should protect the small not the big in my opinion.
Actually the Acer Iconia has a "double material" bezel on two sides. You not only have the black rectangle, but two metal lines on top and bottom.
So it clearly distinguishes itself from the registered community design IMHO. And guess what - it's selling pretty good.
To disrupt a Market you must be doing something different. Either your pricing is cheaper than competitors (MS), your logistics (DELL), your engineering (Dyson) , your design etc ...
With Apple it's design and engineering coupled with a consumer focussed Eco system that seeks to do 80% of what a user would like to do and focus on that 80%. MS and google like to have huge Market share so they focus on EVERYTHING so that they can get as many people possible, therefore they do the 80% that apple focus on but worse. Google and MS need the masses because MS make less margin on each product they sell than apple, and google sell people search info and that becomes more accurate as they get more people. So we have 3 different approaches to business all dictated by the end business model and associated margins.
Apple are seeking to protect their angle otherwise what don they have? The logic to me indicates that whatever your doing as a company that disrupts an industry you must have a means to protect it. In apples eyes the design / UI / UX coupled with engineering is what makes their product unique and disruptive. They would argue that they spent years figuring out the size, shape, button position, Icon positioning, spacing of icons etc.. To bring about the result of a disruptive product. It is their opinion that those those details are what makes there device non generic and it's what they spend a lot of effort on.
It's just the same as in fashion design. There is nothing unique about a pair of jeans. But the pocket detail, the wash etc.. Are all something the separates one designers jeans from another. The fact that you don't notice or care about design is neither here nor there. The reality is that without that design process neither then denim manafacturer or apple would have the disruptive product.
People always belittle design and designers. They think it's easy and not worthy of any extra thought. They don't understand that the interface to a product is just as important as what the product does. A minimalist design does not mean a simple to make design. In fact, reduction is one the hardest parts of design. Simplifying stuff yet still making it powerful is incredibly difficult. Look at how many options the blackberry has vs the iPhone? Or look at the new windows 8 explorer with that office ribbon interface compared to mac OS lions finder. To me I think guys on this forum have become naive and are not giving credit where Credits due.
I have worked in software development teams where the project manager will literally give you a screen shot of a competitors screen and tell you to copy it. They want you to use the exact button layouts and image sizes, everything. This means that they are piggy backing off the UX that the original website has sweated over and paid lots of money to design. When you copy someone else's design that's what your doing. You are getting away with not thinking, doing any testing etc.. On user experience of your product. This is what it looks like Samsung has done.
I bet there are at least a dozen working prototypes of the iPad all in different shapes and sizes with different button layouts and diffent UI's all sitting in some cupboard in Cupertino. In fact I think the iPad was conceived before the iPhone so it must have went through tons of design stages. I bet samsung has probably 1 prototype because they knew what they wanted to make, simply because apple had already made it for them!
My point is that people think making a simple looking device like the iPad (and the iPhone) is a generic activity with an obvious solution. I would argue that if it were we would have seen hundreds of million selling devices by now that were just as successful as the iOS devices. The fact that we don't see this happening is testament that the iPad design and UX is unique and is worthy of protection. Just because you can not recognise a design choice does not meant someone didnt spend time and effort working it out.
Stupid laws don't tend to survive. So you should consider that just maybe you are wrong here. The German laws make it possible to get very fast action if someone else does things that are damaging you. Since the initial preliminary injunction was confirmed, it turned out to work very nicely to protect Apple. So do you think it is stupid that damage can be prevented quickly? Had the initial preliminary injunction been overturned, Apple would have paid for any damage it caused Samsung. That is an important part of the law, and actually the part that makes it "not stupid".
Now obviously if you are just an Android fan and you judge everything by whether it agrees with your personal preferences or not, then of course anything that prevents Android companies to rip off Apple will be considered "stupid".
Those are just a few I mentioned. Check HP Touchpad, everything is same as ipad. And the most popular Android tablets are Tab and Transformer.
Dude, its pointless making some of these people understand.
Firstly, its very hard to decipher some of these official/legal protocols to these laymen as the basis of their understand is often of the consumeristic temperament. It's very easy for most of us to sketch a rectangle and put a 3rd dimension to it and extend the depth to a fifth of an inch.
But it is hard for most of us to find the utility and application of such a design.
Secondly, it is hard for most of them to comprehend that nobody before the year of 2004 came up with anything like that. After all its a rectangular glass slab.
Thirdly, they cannot understand that these are just normal legal proceedings, every company follows and agrees to. Apple shouldn't just license all of their innovations so that some others can come up with a similar product and reap the benefits for the rest of their life.