Have any of you ever used a Galaxy Tab 10.1? Or even seen it? It looks NOTHING like an iPad on the back. As for the front, there's only so many variations of "slab of touchable glass" a person can make. The aspect ratio is different, the edge is different, the back isn't remotely the same. Those other tablets look so different at a glance because they're MUCH thicker. Should Apple be allowed an exclusive on thin and light? No way. The software doesn't look remotely like iOS. And of course, I'm an iPad fan myself so I hate to say this - but the Samsung screen is several times higher quality and the difference in color saturation is visible from quite some distance if the device was on and showing a full color photo with bright colors.
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.
Samsung Lawyers Also Struggle to Tell iPad and Galaxy Tab Apart
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Copying look and feel is not enough (and Samsung didn't directly copy any design patent or trademark). The look and feel has to be associated with Apple to the point that a buyer really thinks they're buying an Apple authorized product.
In my previous posts I gave two examples of trade dress cases that failed even though they were far more of a copy than anything Samsung did.
1) Prestone Antifreeze - a small shop started selling antifreeze in a yellow jug of the same style. Prestone sued, and lost because they never emphasized their jug or its color in their ads. Now think about it, does Apple say to buy their iPad because it's flat and rounded rectangular? Nope, they say to buy it for the apps. (Same thing went for "Multi-touch", which is why Apple didn't get the trademark.)
2) Excedrin PM vs Tylenol PM - same 'PM' suffix, same shading on packages. Seems open and shut, doesn't it? The case was dismissed because the court held that the brand names "Excedrin" and "Tylenol" were well known enough to clue in a pill buyer. Now think Apple and Samsung.
Was this the case that the Samsung exec said they'd bring out once the new iPhone was released, proving all idevices were and always had been infringing their patents. There was a lot of tough talk coming out of Samsung over that one.
The linked page has a misleading view of the Samsung picture frame from 2006. It's actually about 3" thick. Better views are shown here:
That's not the point. The point is iPad should not be the only tablet that has a black bezel around it.
Seems Apple has made their position very clear.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/apple-told-samsung-it-owns-thicket-of.html
Apple to Samsung: We own a "thicket of patents" and will license only "lower level patents"
On Friday, the decision of the Federal Court of Australia to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was published, with a very few passages redacted out. Its a long document, Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. I pasted the content of that HTML page into a word processor, and it filled 65 pages. But its definitely one of the most interesting court orders I have read in connection with mobile devices.
I have always assumed based on what Steve Jobs said last year when Apple sued HTC and on Apples litigation tactics that Apple didnt start all of this Android-related litigation just to walk away with a $5-per-unit kind of license deal, Mueller reports. Apple optimizes for product differentiation. Apple isnt Microsoft, which concluded a license deal with Samsung as well as eight other Android device makers. Those two companies have different business models in general and with respect to patents in particular.
Mueller reports, A few months ago I wrote in another post (on the BRIC countries possibly becoming a safe haven for Android) that a deal under which Apple would let Android off the hook would come with conditions including that some patents would probably still be kept exclusively. And thanks to the Australian court ruling, I can now say with certainty that this is what Apple communicated to Samsung.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/apple-told-samsung-it-owns-thicket-of.html
Apple to Samsung: We own a "thicket of patents" and will license only "lower level patents"
On Friday, the decision of the Federal Court of Australia to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was published, with a very few passages redacted out. Its a long document, Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. I pasted the content of that HTML page into a word processor, and it filled 65 pages. But its definitely one of the most interesting court orders I have read in connection with mobile devices.
I have always assumed based on what Steve Jobs said last year when Apple sued HTC and on Apples litigation tactics that Apple didnt start all of this Android-related litigation just to walk away with a $5-per-unit kind of license deal, Mueller reports. Apple optimizes for product differentiation. Apple isnt Microsoft, which concluded a license deal with Samsung as well as eight other Android device makers. Those two companies have different business models in general and with respect to patents in particular.
Mueller reports, A few months ago I wrote in another post (on the BRIC countries possibly becoming a safe haven for Android) that a deal under which Apple would let Android off the hook would come with conditions including that some patents would probably still be kept exclusively. And thanks to the Australian court ruling, I can now say with certainty that this is what Apple communicated to Samsung.
Last edited:
So your aunt didn't notice the Samsung logo on the front and rear of the tablet, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab logos splattered all over the box?
I'm not doubting you, but hey, your aunt must have pretty bad eyesight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup - these were the patents behind all that tough talk. FRAND patents are essential patents to a technological area (unlike Apple's design patents) and therefore FRAND patents must be licensed at reasonable terms in order to prevent monopolistic behavior. So you can make money off of FRAND patents (and lots of it because everyone becomes a licensee) but you can't get injunctions and block competitors. If other countries follow rule similarly to the Netherlands then Samsung may find themselves low on patent ammunition.
Truth be told, Apple tried to play nice with Samsung and politely asked them to change the physical designs of their phones and tablets. Not a big favor to ask considering Samsung was making serious cash off every iPhone and iPad sold. But Samsung apparently did not like that Apple had siphoned so many mobile phone customers away since 2007 and wanted to attack Apple head-on. This is playing out in the worst possible way for Samsung so far. They are fairing poorly in the courts and they are losing Apple's business on the supply side.
Like I've said before, there are some sales account managers at Samsung who are none to pleased with the folks who pushed the Galaxy line forward. Their commissions are diminishing with every passing day.
Re:Samsung Lawyers Also Struggle to Tell iPad and Galaxy Tab Apart
Apple Inc claims that the Samsung company has followed the designs and working procedures of the apple Ipad.But Samsung is claiming that it has manufactured from it's patents.So There is controversial issue is arising in between the to companies.
Apple Inc claims that the Samsung company has followed the designs and working procedures of the apple Ipad.But Samsung is claiming that it has manufactured from it's patents.So There is controversial issue is arising in between the to companies.
1. How does this work with products like cheap fake handbags or cheap "Rolox" watches and the like, where the buyer knows exactly that they are getting a fake, but they buy it because it looks similar to the original, that is because they want others to think it might be an original? (With watches, I am told there are now plenty of watches that are actually made with the intent to defraud).
2. In Excedrin vs. Tylenol for example the case is _only_ about confusion and people buying the wrong product by mistake. Nobody buys Excedrin PM because they like the packaging so much; the packaging is just a hint of what product is sold. But in an iPad, the packaging and the product design are actually important parts of the product. People might look at a Samsung tablet, and a Sony tablet, and they might decide that both are exactly of the same value, price and quality, but buy the Samsung tablet because they want something that looks like an iPad.
Last edited by a moderator:
It does seem that Samsung have deliberately set out to copy the look and feel of the iPad though (and the iPhone with their Touchwiz interface).
I have an Asus transformer as well as an iPad and Asus have made their tablet look completely different to the iPad (as have Sony and other companies), and have added features over and above what the iPad has (such as the dockable keyboard and touch pad), which is why I got it as an additional device.
Even ignoring any ethical arguments, I wouldn't get a Samsung Galaxy because to me it's "Like an iPad, but not an iPad" - why would I choose it over the iPad?
Are people just tired this morning or something? Its not a big thing for a company to completely redesign their products after it already went into production?
What are you talking about with Samsung making serious cash on the iphone and ipad? They supplied parts to Apple only, and probably at a low price for Apple to take the deal. They're not exactly overflowing with cash from the deal. Its Apple thats making several hundred dollars per devices.
No it does not. The look is generic and not specific to the Ipad. The feel is totally different. Functionality is different too. I'm tired of seeing the argument, this company's design is different from the ipad, so that company should be different too or else its copying the ipad. The transformer is different(unique) and if another company came up with something similar, it'll be copying. The ipad is a black rectangle, very generic, so even blind designers will be able to come up with something similar. Concluding it as a case of copying is stupid.
They might buy Samsung because it looks better. What does that have to do with the Ipad?
Take a look at the picture several comments ago that shows a Samsung tablet from 2006 with the front looking nearly identical to the Galaxy tab now. Of course it was from 2006 and very thick, but companies are always striving to make gadgets smaller, thinner, and lighter with the progression of technology. Fast forward to now, and you have the Galaxy tab. Eazy pezy.
A clear case of Samsung design progression, no copying seen anywhere. If anything Apple copied the front from Samsung.
The court case is so dumb. When the Judge showed off the two side by side, for comparison, I'm assuming she showed the front of the devices, which happens to be just black rectangles. And clearly, Samsung came up with the black rectangle in 2006, before apple did.
Last edited:
You go on and post yourself happy on MacRumors; meanwhile Apple wins in the courts
FYI: Samsung did _not_ have any tablet in the year 2006. They had a photo frame. A photo frame is not a tablet, and I'm sure Apple doesn't mind if Samsung continues selling their photo frames.
Obviously Samsung had no problem redesigning the Galaxy Tab in the three months after the iPad 2 announcement to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad 2 -- so they obviously don't have a problem with redesigning if they are making it look more like Apple products.
Regarding the amount of cash that Samsung was making off Apple, the figure I saw reported was $8 BILLION dollars per year. That would be a good customer for pretty much any company.
So I stand by what I said.
You go on and post yourself happy on MacRumors; meanwhile Apple wins in the courts
FYI: Samsung did _not_ have any tablet in the year 2006. They had a photo frame. A photo frame is not a tablet, and I'm sure Apple doesn't mind if Samsung continues selling their photo frames.
The iPad is a tablet, while this is a photo frame, but it can store photos, music and movies, as well, so the similarities dont end at just looking the same.
Legally, it might not even matter if they are in different markets. I remember when Apple had to settle with Cisco for the name iPhone, even though Cisco was using the name for a completely different market than smartphones. So how can Apple put an injunction on the Galaxy Tab because it looks similar to the iPad, if both look like this product made by Samsung, no other, in 2006? Does Apple really own the look and feel of tablets then, or does Samsung?
Being similar is what defines an entire product category. Without some kind of similarity, we wouldnt have tablets wed have just tablet. We wouldnt have fridges. Wed just have fridge, and so on. Entire markets would be defined by just one unique product alone. That means there wouldnt be any direct competition. One company would have the monopoly over that product category in every market. Prices would be higher, and the progress for that type of product would be a lot slower, since there would be nobody offering a similar product. If everyone enforced their patents on all their competitors, and justice regarding this would be made swiftly, thats exactly the type of world we would live in. And all because the patent system is so broken, and doesnt account for how things work in the real business world.
Fortunately, for the most part, the business world doesnt work like that. Competitors copy each others features all the time and they dont even bother suing each other (even though they could, as long as they own the patents). This ends up making the progress of their products a lot faster. They *need* to stay always one step or two ahead of each other in different features, so people can still prefer them over the others. But they all copy the basic features and concepts from each other, and then they just compete on new innovations and differentiating factors. The prices also drop because everyone overs pretty similar products, and the quality keeps getting up. Consumers win.
But in some markets (tablet market) some competitors (Apple) will actually try to enforce their patents to block their competitors from even competing with them. The only reason that fantasy patent world I mentioned earlier doesnt really exist is because the patents are not enforced as much as they could be by companies. But Apple seems to be trying their best to make that patent fantasy world become real, and if they succeed, all customers will be at a loss for lack of choices for similar products. And that includes Apple customers, because everyone loses when theres less competition for a type of product.
Have you seen the side view of that 3-inch thick photo frame? Looks nothing like a tablet. The photo frame is a bad thing to latch on to in this debate.
I more interesting thing to look at would be the JooJoo which was announced before the iPad and was also made to look like a large iPhone. I don't quite know why the JooJoo does not come up more in these legal proceedings.
My personal beef with Samsung is that most companies don't try to compete against an $8B per year customer. Doing so is usually deemed ludicrous. However, Samsung seemed to think they could do it and win without first trying to invalidate Apple's design patents. This whole thing has been very poorly played by Samsung, but what do I know? It's not like I am running a multi-billion dollar corporation. I get to be an "armchair CEO" and simply critique them on this forum.
Have you seen the side view of that 3-inch thick photo frame? Looks nothing like a tablet. The photo frame is a bad thing to latch on to in this debate.
I more interesting thing to look at would be the JooJoo which was announced before the iPad and was also made to look like a large iPhone. I don't quite know why the JooJoo does not come up more in these legal proceedings.
My personal beef with Samsung is that most companies don't try to compete against an $8B per year customer. Doing so is usually deemed ludicrous. However, Samsung seemed to think they could do it and win without first trying to invalidate Apple's design patents. This whole thing has been very poorly played by Samsung, but what do I know? It's not like I am running a multi-billion dollar corporation. I get to be an "armchair CEO" and simply critique them on this forum.
It doesn't look like a tablet from the side, but it does look like the iPad from the front. Using your logic, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks completely different because their backs don't look the same....
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents
and yet its the apple that gets the most flak
Imagine that.... Apple is bulling everyone these days. Heck some are mentioning Apple going after people who sit on four legged chairs.
so basically courts across the globe are saying:
1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents
and yet its the apple that gets the most flak
I see it the other way-
1. Apple is bullying Samsung with their dumb 'four corners and a black front' patent
2. Samsung is (rightfully) suing Apple for infringing on their 3G patent
And yet it's Samsung who's getting all the blame here.
Well obviously. And rightfully so, it would appear.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...phone_screenshot_for_galaxy_player_promo.html
Last edited:
The only thing that's obvious, is that it had nothing to do with Apple's lawsuits. If anything, it simply points out that it can be more difficult for lazy graphics artists to find screen captures from Android devices.
Even the article you quoted says it was a mistake:
"... a failure to replace a placeholder image is believed to be the cause." - Apple Insider
Debating look-and-feel is fine, and appropriate in this case, but should consist of discussions of the actual issues instead of time wasting nonsense... even if the latter is so much easier because it requires no research or thinking.