Samsung Tweaks Galaxy Tab 10.1 Design for Relaunch in Germany

[Ryan John]

Still a knockoff.

Real patents. A little bit more than "frame design".

Yeah because Apple invented the tab didn't they, Wait! we had stones in tablet shapes slightly before Jesus

Don't be so naive. Samsung have continually tried to offer the olive branch to Apple in these stupid legal games. Once again they have shown they are willing to move to settle the issue of the shape of a tablet.

Let's see Apple alter their internal technology so easily. Or even if they show some willing to pay for the licenses.

 

[jlc1978]

You are right and he is wrong? Perhaps you should attach a pdf of your resume to your post to back it up.

Design registration, (in the US - Design Patents) protect the design of an object and prevent people from making essentially identical appearing items. The design needs to be unique enough to not merely come about from the functionality of the object. They protect the appearance, not the function, of a product.

So he probably is correct; based on Samsung's actions.

 

[slippyr4]

There is NO samsung logo on current version (only on several PR shots), this practice goes as back as last year's failed Tab 7. Also it is quite funny that samsung alters products based on lost/potential lawsuits - but only for the markets where the lawsuits are/would be, just like SGS2 in US.

Thats not true. I own one, it's got the samsung logo.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Yeah because Apple invented the tab didn't they, Wait! we had stones in tablet shapes slightly before Jesus

Don't be so naive. Samsung have continually tried to offer the olive branch to Apple in these stupid legal games. Once again they have shown they are willing to move to settle the issue of the shape of a tablet.

Let's see Apple alter their internal technology so easily. Or even if they show some willing to pay for the licenses.

Yes, don't be so naive.
The only reason they are doing this is that they were blocked from sales!

While the basic shape of a screen is the same for all competitors, it is easy to make the surrounding frame look different from a design standpoint.

Samsung did not want to do this and is even now trying to be as close as they can get away with to the ipad.

The dispute over the internal technology is about whether Samsung will be allowed to double dip, i.e. get a licensing fee from Qualcomm AND another fee from Apple who buys the already licensed chips .
IMO that lawsuit was brought on to have a "bargaining chip" in the settlement of the ipad dispute (Which will be settled)

To praise Samsung for its "willingness" is misguided!

 

[R0bert]

They should have removed the metal frame instead of making it larger.

 

[Ryan John]

Yes, don't be so naive.
The only reason they are doing this is that they were blocked from sales!

While the basic shape of a screen is the same for all competitors, it is easy to make the surrounding frame look different from a design standpoint.

Samsung did not want to do this and is even now trying to be as close as they can get away with to the ipad.

The dispute over the internal technology is about whether Samsung will be allowed to double dip, i.e. get a licensing fee from Qualcomm AND another fee from Apple who buys the already licensed chips .
IMO that lawsuit was brought on to have a "bargaining chip" in the settlement of the ipad dispute (Which will be settled)

To praise Samsung for its "willingness" is misguided!

I can't agree, it's Apples' continual desire to sue the competition out of the marketplace that is the problem. Samsung have made numerous attempts and performed actions to appease Apple but it is falling on deaf ears.

The longer Apple can keep the android manufacturers on the back foot, the longer they will maintain the current levels of profit. Finally not all judges around the world are falling for this crap as witnessed in Spain and Germany 3 times in the last month.

 

[Kimbie]

There is NO samsung logo on current version (only on several PR shots), this practice goes as back as last year's failed Tab 7. Also it is quite funny that samsung alters products based on lost/potential lawsuits - but only for the markets where the lawsuits are/would be, just like SGS2 in US.

The UK models most certainly have the Samsung logo on the front and on the back of the Tab 10.1

Kimbie

 

[lukarak]

Yeah because Apple invented the tab didn't they, Wait! we had stones in tablet shapes slightly before Jesus

Don't be so naive. Samsung have continually tried to offer the olive branch to Apple in these stupid legal games. Once again they have shown they are willing to move to settle the issue of the shape of a tablet.

Let's see Apple alter their internal technology so easily. Or even if they show some willing to pay for the licenses.

Ye, they have offered it. By copying further. Not just the phones. Have you seen the power bricks? The packaging? And its not only Samsung. ASUS on it's new ultrabooks has the same powerbrick as the MBA

 

[adrian.oconnor]

They should've kept the old shape and got rid of the silver border by anodizing the back/painting it black. That'd look pretty slick (IMHO) and would hopefully (for Samsung) side-step the patent.

----------

Ye, they have offered it. By copying further. Not just the phones. Have you seen the power bricks? The packaging? And its not only Samsung. ASUS on it's new ultrabooks has the same powerbrick as the MBA

And the HP Envy 15 and 17 models that were announced yesterday look remarkably like MBPs.

 

[840quadra]

I think quite a few people on both sides of the argument really need to read up on Community design laws, and look at the exact item that Apple is trying to protect.

There appears to be a gap in the understanding of how each community design is vetted (or not), and how companies are supposed to resolve them.

 

[Marcus-k]

 

[Oletros]

I think quite a few people on both sides of the argument really need to read up on Community design laws, and look at the exact item that Apple is trying to protect.

There appears to be a gap in the understanding of how each community design is vetted (or not), and how companies are supposed to resolve them.

One thing I would want to know is what happens if one court (Dutch court per example) dictates that this Community Design is invalid. Would processes in other countries adhere to that resolution?

 

[840quadra]

One thing I would want to know is what happens if one court (Dutch court per example) dictates that this Community Design is invalid. Would processes in other countries adhere to that resolution?

That is a great question actually. I was trying to look through case files on that subject when I was first thumbing through published disputed designs. I wasn't able to find an example at OHIM of a design disputed in two separate courts, or how that effected the overall design submittal.

 

[i.mac]

You can blame Apple for that. Apparently, sleek and good looking designs aren't just Apple's hallmark, its their trademarked patent too.

Comments like this are off the mark. Freaking show me a sleek tablet design before the iPad, then this comment would make some sense.

Samsung has so many conflict of interest with their relationship with apple, that is any wonder how they can claim their iPad version is 'original' with a straight face or any legal claim.

And then we get comments like yours... Go figure.

----------

I think quite a few people on both sides of the argument really need to read up on Community design laws, and look at the exact item that Apple is trying to protect.

There appears to be a gap in the understanding of how each community design is vetted (or not), and how companies are supposed to resolve them.

Please enlighten us all...

 

[Sermon]

Image

Image

Please stop posting half-truths and incorrect "facts".

That picture with the iPhone and the Samsung F700 is incorrect and has long since been debunked. The F700 was NOT first shown at the CeBit in 2006 and was NOT released in February 2007. Do some research and you'll find out that the F700 was officially introduced after the unveiling of the iPhone. It was also released after the iPhone.

It is also no secret that Jonathan Ive was influenced by Dieter Rams' designs he did for Braun. He even wrote Rams a letter of appreciation. Ive's designs are hommages to Rams' designs, not blatant rip-offs. There is a difference between, for example, designing a desktop computer that is an hommage to an almost 50-year-old design of a speaker and basing the design of your latest phone on the design of a competing product.

 

[miggitymac]

Oh wow thanks had no idea about this. Thought one speaker grill = one speaker.




Not at all. My argument is, in McDonalds terms, you see a McDonalds commercial - let's say once or twice in your life. You go down the street and someone is selling this:

Image

What would you think? Without much prior knowledge would you really recognise that the logo is different and it's not McDonalds at all?



Most people don't know precisely what they want and still spend 500, hell even more, on things.



Most people buy the TV that looks the best and is the cheapest. Right? That works out because all TVs do the same in the end.

The problem is tablets don't all do the same. Most people don't know that.

First, I don't know why you think the food and TV industries are analogous to the tablet industry. The latter really only has 3 major players, and of those 3, one is currently dominating the market...so much so that most people don't know what a tablet is...they just know what an iPad is (e.g. my mom and sister).

Accordingly, most people just don't walk into a store with $500 and ask for a tablet. Most people walk in and ask for an iPad. They have no idea what the names of the other brands are...everything else is just something that looks like an iPad and are probably knock-offs (in their minds).

Having said that, you'd have to be blind and/or a complete idiot to walk out with one of these and think you have an iPad.

I don't think you're giving "most" people enough credit....IT SAYS "SAMSUNG" AND "GALAXY TAB" RIGHT ON THE BOX! How are they gonna **** that up and think it's an iPad?

----------

Image

Image

Funny how the fanboys don't even seem to see this. In law, that's called willful ignorance...which is kind of a perfect definition for fanboy.

just sayin'.

----------

Please stop posting half-truths and incorrect "facts".

That picture with the iPhone and the Samsung F700 is incorrect and has long since been debunked. The F700 was NOT first shown at the CeBit in 2006 and was NOT released in February 2007. Do some research and you'll find out that the F700 was officially introduced after the unveiling of the iPhone. It was also released after the iPhone.

It is also no secret that Jonathan Ive was influenced by Dieter Rams' designs he did for Braun. He even wrote Rams a letter of appreciation. Ive's designs are hommages to Rams' designs, not blatant rip-offs. There is a difference between, for example, designing a desktop computer that is an hommage to an almost 50-year-old design of a speaker and basing the design of your latest phone on the design of a competing product.

Quick google search gave me this (top 3 results):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
http://gizmodo.com/235112/apple-iphone-vs-samsung-f700-which-is-touchscreenier

All say that it was released February 2007.

 

[b166er]

If I was Samsung I would honestly just step away from the tablet market for a while. Samsung makes many great products that Apple does not make. They are not under any immediate threat if they don't produce an iPad killer- which right now seems impossible for them.

When the iPod came out it destroyed everything. And most companies learned that their efforts were wasted trying to compete with it. This is true to this day.

Why not just let Apple have the tablet market for now? Eventually the competition will become so dry that people will be screaming for a "different" tablet and that's when Samsung should strike. Let people get tired of the iPad. Apple sells a lot more tablets, phones, and Mp3 players than it does computers. None of the big PC manufacturers feel as threatened by Apple as the cell phone manufacturers do.

Don't get me wrong, I like my iPad and obviously I'm an apple user. And I honestly think that Samsung makes the best tablet that isn't an iPad (although neither are perfect). But speaking objectively I think it makes FISCAL sense for Samsung to keep doing what they do best, which is not making tablets. The time will come for android tablets that don't suck.

 

[Sermon]

Quick google search gave me this (top 3 results):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
http://gizmodo.com/235112/apple-iphone-vs-samsung-f700-which-is-touchscreenier

All say that it was released February 2007.

Take a look at the gsmarena link - it says "Announced 2007, February. Released 2007, December".

The (as far as I know) correct timeline for the SGH F700 is as follows:

- February 2007 - first presentation of the device
- November 2007 - european release
- March 2008 - north american release (as U940)

 

[miggitymac]

If I was Samsung I would honestly just step away from the tablet market for a while. Samsung makes many great products that Apple does not make. They are not under any immediate threat if they don't produce an iPad killer- which right now seems impossible for them.

When the iPod came out it destroyed everything. And most companies learned that their efforts were wasted trying to compete with it. This is true to this day.

Why not just let Apple have the tablet market for now? Eventually the competition will become so dry that people will be screaming for a "different" tablet and that's when Samsung should strike. Let people get tired of the iPad. Apple sells a lot more tablets, phones, and Mp3 players than it does computers. None of the big PC manufacturers feel as threatened by Apple as the cell phone manufacturers do.

Don't get me wrong, I like my iPad and obviously I'm an apple user. And I honestly think that Samsung makes the best tablet that isn't an iPad (although neither are perfect). But speaking objectively I think it makes FISCAL sense for Samsung to keep doing what they do best, which is not making tablets. The time will come for android tablets that don't suck.

This is what a lot of people don't get....yes, Apple made the first successful tablet....but in doing so, they created a market for tablets.

What did you expect a Samsung tablet to look like?! Of course it will look like a tablet!! How else would they compete in a tablet market??

 

[miggitymac]

Take a look at the gsmarena link - it says "Announced 2007, February. Released 2007, December".

Ahh...one more google search led me to this:

http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/

It seems you were right. My apologies.

 

[b166er]

What did you expect a Samsung tablet to look like?! Of course it will look like a tablet!! How else would they compete in a tablet market??

Exactly. It looks like what it's called. Pad, slate, tablet, they all kind of conjure up a similar image in my head.

 

[Sermon]

Ahh...one more google search led me to this:

http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/

It seems you were right. My apologies.

No problem. I'm just a little allergic to that image, because I know it's not correct, but still people keep bringing it up again and again.

 

[Oletros]

No problem. I'm just a little allergic to that image, because I know it's not correct, but still people keep bringing it up again and again.

Yap, like the image about how Samsung copies Apple with those half truth and wrong images

 

[cirus]

Take a look at the gsmarena link - it says "Announced 2007, February. Released 2007, December".

The (as far as I know) correct timeline for the SGH F700 is as follows:

- February 2007 - first presentation of the device
- November 2007 - european release
- March 2008 - north american release (as U940)

Please stop posting half-truths and incorrect "facts".

That picture with the iPhone and the Samsung F700 is incorrect and has long since been debunked. The F700 was NOT first shown at the CeBit in 2006 and was NOT released in February 2007. Do some research and you'll find out that the F700 was officially introduced after the unveiling of the iPhone. It was also released after the iPhone.

It is also no secret that Jonathan Ive was influenced by Dieter Rams' designs he did for Braun. He even wrote Rams a letter of appreciation. Ive's designs are hommages to Rams' designs, not blatant rip-offs. There is a difference between, for example, designing a desktop computer that is an hommage to an almost 50-year-old design of a speaker and basing the design of your latest phone on the design of a competing product.

Um... the F700 was unveiled about 1 month after the iphone. Do you really think that Samsung could design the phone in one month? Especially as the iphone was released to the public in june?

Things can be developed independantly of each other. Leibnez and Newton developed calculus seperately.

 

[Sermon]

Um... the F700 was unveiled about 1 month after the iphone. Do you really think that Samsung could design the phone in one month? Especially as the iphone was released to the public in june?

Things can be developed independantly of each other. Leibnez and Newton developed calculus seperately.

I'm not saying that Samsung copied Apple. Or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that the "facts" in that image - which is often used to "prove" that Samsung was there first - are wrong.

Of course the two designs could have been developed separately. On the other hand one could speculate that Samsung, being a major provider of parts for the iPhone, must have known what it looks like long before it was revealed to the public. But that's all highly speculative.