German Injunction Against Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 Upheld

[daveperso]

I hope this backfires on Apple

I am an Apple fan but they have gone way OTT regarding the Galaxy. They are acting against the consumer, taking any choice we might have. I checked out the Galaxy in the shops and frankly the outer design is BETTER than the iPad, thinner and larger and that is probably what is pissing Apple off. Samsung haven't copied Apple, they've gone one better. I'd still opt for the iPad though since I am not a big fan of Android i.e. it bugs but I am beginning to feel that Apple is restricting me more and more. It is certainly making me feel less 'Apple friendly' and I wonder how many of us will go ahead and buy a Galaxy just because it has been 'outlawed' in some countries.

 

[macsmurf]

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.

I couldn't agree more. However, the argument here is that Apple did in fact manage acquire the right to sell jeans in Germany. It's not about the little details that distinguish a great designs from an average ones.

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.

Again, I agree. I could have written the above. It's interesting that we agree but come to opposite conclusions.

 

[divinox]

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.

I asked for 3 people who has claimed the iphone was not disruptive, not another wall of text. Dont mean to be rude, but i cant be bothered to read that atm (NHL 12 ftw). That said, reading the first few lines you seem clever enough not to act stupid. So dont. (and dont take that the wrong way, its more of a compliment than anything else).

(and no, i dont downplay the role of designers, and especially not when it comes to UX and HCI, i just dont think the physical design that Apple registered is worthy of protection being too generic. With that i have no intentions of downplaying simplicity either (the simple is often 10x harder than its reverse). The physical design is simply too plain (and "functional"). Nothing more, nothing less. Like earlier stated i do, e.g., find the latest imac design protection worthy (and, if someone made a near-replica of the ipad, i would of course find that to be ill too; however, the tab is not)).

 

[apolloa]

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...

They probably made the mistake of assuming international multi billion dollar giant electronic corporations would be more mature then a 10 year old bully! And that goes for the majority of these companies, not just Apple, they should remember they didn't get to where they are today by suing the way to the top. But it now seems the fashionable 'in thing' to do to try and stay there, in stead of innovate...

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".

I could name plenty of 'stupid laws' that are in power, the fact that the other courts threw Apples case out so quickly makes me think it doesn't have much credence, I am not an exclusive Android fan either feller, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
I am like most of the annoyed people a fan of competition and fairness and innovation, something the blind Apple fans seem to have totally forgotten about and ignored.
Because ignoring the 10.1 for a moment, just how in all seriousness can you state that a 7" tablet looks the exact same and has ripped off a 9" tablet to the extent consumers will be confused, the giant SAMSUNG logo and massive size difference don't give it away?
Apple will also fail with the Galaxy smart phone case, the grid view is one view of a menu system, not the main view, Apple's iOS only has one grid view and that's it, as for placing products in the top of the box, please Sony Ericsson to name one have been doing that long before Apple did.
These are all arguments Apple has used, but it knows Samsung has stolen it's sales so it decided to block it's sales instead of compete with them in the market place, it's got nothing to do with protecting intellectual property from a drawing and everything to do with stopping the sale of devices consumers want more then your own.

 

[divinox]

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.

And yes, 2004 is quite some time ago, but the design-rules and trends were pretty much the same (and evidently, others have thought the same. you really dont want to imply that those who did dug through Apples filings to "copy them in advance", so to speak... do you?)

p.s. As for normal, a swedish professor (as in the highest academic title), specialized in patent-law (or equivalent) stated that this case (including preliminary injunctions and all) is pretty much unprecedented.

----------

I am an Apple fan but they have gone way OTT regarding the Galaxy. They are acting against the consumer, taking any choice we might have. I checked out the Galaxy in the shops and frankly the outer design is BETTER than the iPad, thinner and larger and that is probably what is pissing Apple off. Samsung haven't copied Apple, they've gone one better. I'd still opt for the iPad though since I am not a big fan of Android i.e. it bugs but I am beginning to feel that Apple is restricting me more and more. It is certainly making me feel less 'Apple friendly' and I wonder how many of us will go ahead and buy a Galaxy just because it has been 'outlawed' in some countries.

Only Apple have the right to build on the works of others, others can never build on the work of Apple. Apple made sure to patent that back when Halliburton patented patent trolling...

 

[swagi]

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.

The transformer also has two seperate metal bezels on left and right (in contrast to top and bottom on Iconia). Samsung just made the mistake not to use this kind of distinguishing design.

That was the argument of the case - and law has spoken the argument is legit (though I personally disagree - but that doesn't matter).

No matter how you argue about it - Samsung just has to slightly modify the shell and they are done. Can't take a rocket scientist to do so. Just add some second bezel on the sides and be done.

Now if Apple went after Asus and Acer and would win - that would seriously cause a problem here. But as far as I'm concerned I can see the judges argumentation and I can see very easy ways to avoid this injunction.

But no matter how hard they bully - Apple will lose in the end as they pissed off a lot of people forever (including me).

 

[Lennholm]

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)?

I have a 3DS and think it's great, just wish they could release some more games already.
Sad to see it not doing so well, but it's no surprise since the release and marketing of the 3DS was a big screw-up. It IS a jaw-dropping suprise how Nintendo could manage it so poorly. Bad release timing, insufficient software, non-existant marketing etc.

Super Mario land (original Game Boy) + Pokemon FTW apparently.

Interestingly, Super Mario Land worked on the GameBoy Colour, in that the game had colours in it

I believe the Game Boy Color had built in color palettes for some of the more popular Nintendo games.

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'm seeing more and more Android phones on the train every day.
However, popularity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any innovative qualities, so it's not a relevant argument in this discussion.
By the way, who are these people you claim believe Apple hasn't done anything innovative at all? Mostly, I see people who think Apple is simply NOT QUITE AS innovative as they get credit for here, but more notably, NOT THE ONLY innovative company around.
Why do we get labeled as Apple haters for simply expressing these thoughts?

 

[voonyx]

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 agree. I the stupidity of some of these arguments is baffling

 

[*LTD*]

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.

Apple is looking to set precedent with the Samsung case. Others will likely follow. You have to use a big name when setting an example. Then the small fry who are getting away with what Samsung did (which will be past tense) will likely be deterred or more easily brought into line.

Filing legal claims that happen to be far reaching or that happen to substantially impact a tech company's misguided roadmap is not abuse. It's cleanup. It's why the courts are there. Just because others happen to be hamstrung (due to their own actions) because Apple put their foot down doesn't mean there's a problem with the system or there's abuse going on. What's happening now is a systematic clarification of everyone's position with respect to who owns what, who has rights to what, etc. It's a cleaning up and wringing out of the situation.

Again, submitting patents and rights thereof to legal tests isn't abusive. If those accused are doing things above-board then they have nothing to worry about. Clearly, however, some players in the industry need to re-think their strategies.

Yeah - they brought us casual **** like Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies. The pinnacle of gaming definitely.

Take a look around the app store. This isn't 2008.



Just one example:

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/dead-space/id396018321?mt=8

Also for iPad:

There are other examples.


http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ultimate-mortal-kombat-3/id408070814?mt=8

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infinity-blade/id387428400?mt=8&v0=WWW-NAUS-ITSTOP100&ign-mpt=uo=2

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/contract-killer/id406351386?mt=8

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/hunters-episode-one-hd/id415284093?mt=8

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/n-o-v-a-2-near-orbit-vanguard/id400901088?mt=8

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/modern-combat-2-black-pegasus/id394443824?mt=8

http://theappera.com/2011/01/02/bes...ear-in-action-and-rpg-infinity-blade-strikes/

I could go one, but the list would be too long.

Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space, for example, - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.

All from the same hand-held device. THAT is what Apple brought us.

 

[KnightWRX]

The German laws make it possible to get very fast action if someone else does things that are damaging you.

How pray tell was the Tab 10.1 damaging Apple ? Some facts :

- Apple sells every iPad it makes, at least according to them. So they aren't losing sales to this competitor.
- The same claims, from the same design under the same EU directives in a Dutch court found the same product not infringing.

I guess we'll know how Apple is being "harmed" thanks to the Australian court that asked them to provide sales figures for the iPad in order to prove damages. Was an injunction necessary really, especially over such a controversial Community Design registration ?

And again : Not everyone here in disagreement is a "Android fan", when will some of you get that out of your thick skulls ? We're Apple users that simply do not find the consumer is helped by these tactics.

 

[Dbrown]

Take a look around the app store. This isn't 2008.



Just one example:

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/dead-space/id396018321?mt=8

Also for iPad:

Image

Dead space is a game developed for consoles. This ijunk version wouldnt even exist if it werent for real gaming platforms.

iphone games are all cut down deritives of real games, shovelware or remakes of crappy flash games that exist somewhere else. The most popular iphone game "angry birds" is basically a copy of a game called crush the castle on PC.

 

[swagi]

Take a look around the app store. This isn't 2008.



Just one example:

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/dead-space/id396018321?mt=8
<snipped links>
I could go one, but the list would be too long.

Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space, for example, - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.

All from the same hand-held device. THAT is what Apple brought us.

ROFLMAO

Sorry - played Dead Space 1 and 2 on the XBox and in all honesty - you really want to tell me that the 7 bucks washed out touch-based version is comparable?

Hopefully you get the reference...

 

[gnasher729]

How pray tell was the Tab 10.1 damaging Apple ? Some facts :

- Apple sells every iPad it makes, at least according to them. So they aren't losing sales to this competitor.
- The same claims, from the same design under the same EU directives in a Dutch court found the same product not infringing.

Why do you think Apple sued both in Germany and in the Netherlands? They had to, because the laws are different. In Germany, and in the rest of the EU except for the Netherlands, there are laws against "unfair competition". So by copying Apple's design, Samsung is not just guilty of copying the design, they are also guilty of competing with Apple in an unfair way. In the Netherlands, that second part doesn't apply.

Since the Dutch court decided about a preliminary injunction, the question there was not "is Samsung's product infringing", but "is it so infringing that we have to stop it right now". That court didn't take any aspects of unfair competition into account, because that's not the Dutch law.

To the damage: We have heard again and again how great it is for a company to not only sell everything they can sell, but to have more customers queueing up, because that creates even more demand and will eventually lead to more sales. Companies (including Apple) are often even accused of limiting supply intentionally to create a situation where there is a lot more demand than supply. Every time someone pays a Samsung device instead of an Apple device, that extra demand pressure is reduced, therefore damaging Apple. (Note: It is of course totally normal that fair competition will be damaging to the competitor).

I could name plenty of 'stupid laws' that are in power, the fact that the other courts threw Apples case out so quickly makes me think it doesn't have much credence, I am not an exclusive Android fan either feller, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
I am like most of the annoyed people a fan of competition and fairness and innovation, something the blind Apple fans seem to have totally forgotten about and ignored.

Being a fan of competition and fairness and innovation, you will love to hear that Germany has laws to stop companies from getting involved in "unfair competition". The Netherlands, unlike any other country in the EU, doesn't have these laws, which is why the court decision there was different. So fact is that in a country with laws that demand fair competition Apple won, and in another country without such a law they (preliminary) lost. Think about that.

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!

So what is it now? No damage for Apple at all, like KnightWRX says, or Apple "scared ********"? It is amazing how people come up with arguments against Apple that are totally contradictory. So you would, unlike KnightWRX, agree fully that Samsung is actually damaging Apple?

 

[vrDrew]

Dead space is a game developed for consoles. This ijunk version wouldnt even exist if it werent for real gaming platforms.

iphone games are all cut down deritives of real games, shovelware or remakes of crappy flash games that exist somewhere else. The most popular iphone game "angry birds" is basically a copy of a game called crush the castle on PC.

I don't understand this sort of mentality.

Obviously a $30 game, played on $300+ dedicated console, or a $2000 gaming PC, is going to have some features simply not available on a handheld, portable platform, where the game title sells for less than $10.

You need to understand that there are millions of people who like to do "light" gaming. They don't want an XBox cluttering up their living room, nor do they want to fritter away hours learning cheat codes and game maps. They simply want a few minutes of entertaining diversion.

If a game developer can sell an abridged, ported version to casual iPad gamers, I really don't see how this affects anyone. Hardcore gamers still have the full version, and the developers get to broaden their base of customers.

People playing at Pebble Beach or Augusta don't take offence at the existence of miniature golf courses. Why are you getting worked up about an iPad version of Dead Space?

 

[*LTD*]

ROFLMAO

Sorry - played Dead Space 1 and 2 on the XBox and in all honesty - you really want to tell me that the 7 bucks washed out touch-based version is comparable?

Image

Hopefully you get the reference...

Who was talking about consoles??

What Apple did was monumental for handhelds.

Why are consoles even a part of this discussion?

 

[hot spare]

The transformer also has two seperate metal bezels on left and right (in contrast to top and bottom on Iconia). Samsung just made the mistake not to use this kind of distinguishing design.

That was the argument of the case - and law has spoken the argument is legit (though I personally disagree - but that doesn't matter).

No matter how you argue about it - Samsung just has to slightly modify the shell and they are done. Can't take a rocket scientist to do so. Just add some second bezel on the sides and be done.

Now if Apple went after Asus and Acer and would win - that would seriously cause a problem here. But as far as I'm concerned I can see the judges argumentation and I can see very easy ways to avoid this injunction.

But no matter how hard they bully - Apple will lose in the end as they pissed off a lot of people forever (including me).

I think I agree with you, but find it very weied that just adding a "2nd" bezel would be enough to bypass the said community design.

I saw a few desings registered (some without any buttons). Now, does that mean another company trying to create a clean, button-less design will be infringing the design? I actually thought about such a clean design myself before even looking at those. Anyone would think the same if asked to give a design of a phone they want. Terrible times ahead for many companies.
I am trying to think how would a circular TV look like. With all the TV designs already registered, I can see that the established players can sue a startup out of business if they wanted.

 

[Lennholm]

Why do you think Apple sued both in Germany and in the Netherlands? They had to, because the laws are different. In Germany, and in the rest of the EU except for the Netherlands, there are laws against "unfair competition". So by copying Apple's design, Samsung is not just guilty of copying the design, they are also guilty of competing with Apple in an unfair way. In the Netherlands, that second part doesn't apply.

Since the Dutch court decided about a preliminary injunction, the question there was not "is Samsung's product infringing", but "is it so infringing that we have to stop it right now". That court didn't take any aspects of unfair competition into account, because that's not the Dutch law.

To the damage: We have heard again and again how great it is for a company to not only sell everything they can sell, but to have more customers queueing up, because that creates even more demand and will eventually lead to more sales. Companies (including Apple) are often even accused of limiting supply intentionally to create a situation where there is a lot more demand than supply. Every time someone pays a Samsung device instead of an Apple device, that extra demand pressure is reduced, therefore damaging Apple. (Note: It is of course totally normal that fair competition will be damaging to the competitor).




Being a fan of competition and fairness and innovation, you will love to hear that Germany has laws to stop companies from getting involved in "unfair competition". The Netherlands, unlike any other country in the EU, doesn't have these laws, which is why the court decision there was different. So fact is that in a country with laws that demand fair competition Apple won, and in another country without such a law they (preliminary) lost. Think about that.




So what is it now? No damage for Apple at all, like KnightWRX says, or Apple "scared ********"? It is amazing how people come up with arguments against Apple that are totally contradictory. So you would, unlike KnightWRX, agree fully that Samsung is actually damaging Apple?

What? Two different people can't have different opinions on a particular aspect?
Imo, the Galaxy Tab isn't damaging to Apple right now, but this may change and this is what Apple might be afraid of.
Just look at what has happened, these lawsuits has only served to highten interest in the Galaxy Tab. The biggest problem for companies competing with Apple in this market has always been how to get consumers to even bother looking at the alternative to Apple (the quality of the product itself is never really the problem). Samsung is getting this right now.
The Galaxy Tab may very well become a threat to the iPad and imo, this isn't unfair cometition from Samsung. The Galaxy Tab is easily distinguished from the iPad. The Galaxy Tab infringes on Apples community design but this community design is utter bull and should never have been granted. I mean, look at that illustration, it doesn't have any distinct, unique features that you can't find in tablets pre-dating it or current competitors other than the Galaxy Tab.
Even the iPad has more distinct and different features than the design registration. This means Apple is suing over a design they have protected but not incorporated into a product, which makes them a "community design registration troll"

 

[apolloa]

Who was talking about consoles??

What Apple did was monumental for handhelds.

Why are consoles even a part of this discussion?

Erm? I would say because unless you have been sleeping under a rock for the last 15 years that handheld consoles created, innovated, dominated the market.
Apple has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for this market, its the developers who have made the games, apple really could not care less with it, the only reason it shows any interest is because it can make money from it.
These are all facts we can provide links for if you wish but we know you will just ignore the facts that state you are wrong.
You also fail to appreciate the utterly obvious flaw which makes the majority of iOS games play like total crap and that is that every game has to exclusively use touch screen controls.
Have you ever played a PSP or DS or 3DS?

 

[KnightWRX]

So what is it now? No damage for Apple at all, like KnightWRX says, or Apple "scared ********"? It is amazing how people come up with arguments against Apple that are totally contradictory. So you would, unlike KnightWRX, agree fully that Samsung is actually damaging Apple?

Apple can be both "scared ********" and not damaged by the Tab presently. However, courts do not rule on speculation about whether or not something can be damaging in the future. It's about damages being done. And frankly, I don't see how the Galaxy tab is damaging Apple when Apple claims to sell all it makes, even with "reduced" pressure. It's not like Apple is telling themselves "hey, we could charge more money for this if only Samsung wasn't there", they set the price themselves initially before Samsung was even in the picture.

Anyway, we're 2 people, why do you feel we need to 100% agree because we happen to both disagree with you ? See, in objective discussion, there can be more than 2 opinions, like there's more to life than black or white.

This is not a "With us or Against us" forum. You can have as many opinions and viewpoints as there are people participating, and that is what makes for truly profound discussion rather than the back and forth we often get between the "With us" and the "against us" people that some of you like to categorize posters as.

I really hate when you do that, categorize people as Android fans or Apple haters because otherwise, your comments are pretty balanced. Why do you insist on tainting them and thus lowering our appreciation of your participations ? Do those quips make you feel better ? Can't you respect that some Apple users might not agree with all of what Apple does ? That doesn't make us Android fans or HP fans or Samsung fans just like using and liking some Apple products doesn't make me an Apple fan, only an Apple user.

And please this time, don't evade this. Answer : Why do you insist on categorizing people like you do ? If you don't answer this for me, I'll take it to mean that you just try to insult others and will report all your future posts accordingly for breach of forum rules.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, it was. But that has nothing to do with the iPad really.

Just wanted to say my reading of the decision was spot on according to OSnews, the judge really didn't even consider the iPad at all, only the Community Design registration :

http://www.osnews.com/story/25150/German_Court_Upholds_Injunction_Against_Galaxy_Tab_10_1

Update IV: We finally have some more information from the courts, as well as a short response from Samsung. Big small reveal? The judge didn't handle the iPad at all - he only handled the community design. Read on for more. Also, older updates are in the 'read more' as well.

So much for "damaging" Apple's iPad sales. This is plainly about the Community Design registration, which the Dutch court ruled as something the Tab 10.1 did not infringe.

We have 2 courts now contradicting themselves on this issue. It remains to be seen moving forward how all of this will unfold. Is Germany setting up Apple by granting everything now only to turn around and bill them damages for Samsung if the Community Design is thrown out ?

@Gnasher, read this OSnews piece, it goes further in stating that German and Dutch law might not be as different as you point out, only that the rulings were made on different premises. The Dutch ruling was made on the premise that the Community Design registration was too broad and probably invalid because of its genericity but the German ruling seems to have been made on the very premise that it was completely valid and not in question.

If the Community Design registration doesn't survive a full court case like is the opinion of the Dutch judge, this injunction could become very sour for Apple indeed. Seems like a pretty dangerous bid for something that isn't really damaging to Apple in my opinion.

 

[zacman]

A little OT but still interesting:

A German court has just granted a preliminary injunction against the Spanish Santander bank for using the color red in the logo as that color "belongs" to Sparkasse (a German community bank).

These are the logos:

Sparkasse:

And the "infringing" Santander logo:

 

[Oletros]

Since the Dutch court decided about a preliminary injunction, the question there was not "is Samsung's product infringing", but "is it so infringing that we have to stop it right now". That court didn't take any aspects of unfair competition into account, because that's not the Dutch law.

No, the question was "is Samsung's product infringing" and the answer was NO

-----------------
Jurl, Galaxy Tab can be sold in Germany because the only one that can't be sell them is Samsung Germany. If it is bought from someone else like Samsung Netherlands or Samsung Korea they can be sold:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-apple-samsung-idUSTRE78828820110909

 

[apolloa]

Being a fan of competition and fairness and innovation, you will love to hear that Germany has laws to stop companies from getting involved in "unfair competition". The Netherlands, unlike any other country in the EU, doesn't have these laws, which is why the court decision there was different. So fact is that in a country with laws that demand fair competition Apple won, and in another country without such a law they (preliminary) lost. Think about that.

I'm sure The Netherlands being in Europe will have fair laws to guard against "unfair competition" just as much as Germany, in fact I'm sure if Apple went to another German court they wouldn't have been awarded the win in the case. Don't be sore and insulting just because a neighbouring country to Germany ruled Apple were being ridiculous. Accept the fact it said Apple were wrong.

 

[Oletros]

The Netherlands, unlike any other country in the EU, doesn't have these laws,

Any source to back that Netherland doesn't have those laws?

If they doesn't have those laws, how they ruled that a patent was infringed and that Samsung must stop selling the phones on October?

Do you think that Eastern District of Texas is the best district to sue for IP?

 

[Judas1]

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!!

Every tech company has innovated, not just Apple. Some have innovated a lot more than Apple. But to fansboys, nobody but Apple innovate. Just like how you got on a train and nearly everyone's got an iphone or ipad. Or how you give credit to Apple for Angry Birds which Apple didn't create. Who's delusional and who isn't?