U.S. Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales Goes into Effect as Apple Posts Bond

[thekev]

Good question. I don’t have a link to specific claims which are probably pretty complicated—but definitely NOT just basic things like being thin rectangles.

Samsung truly has copied Apple really blatantly time and time again, undeniably leveraging Apple’s designers to prevent the time/expense/risk of doing their own work from scratch; and whether that’s legally significant or not (seemingly it is, sometimes) there are some links showing that. For starters:

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg

http://dcurt.is/chromebox-samsung (very recent!)

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copycat-2/

Another thing to remember: look at all the other tablets that do NOT use Apple styling. Apple’s way is not the “only way” to design a tablet, or a charger, or a UI, or packaging, etc. etc.

Given the number of lawsuits, was this one definitely on "look and feel"? Beyond that, the phone and tablet photos are lacking context. They had other designs beyond those shown. The photo includes a lot of flip phones that were basically given away during their respective eras. On the tablet thing, I'm wondering what year that was made. It looks like one of those ancient Windows CE devices.

 

[tdmac]

You didn't really understand my post at all.

The consumer (who's point I was putting across) doesn't give a rats ass what the lawsuit is about. All the consumer knows is that its yet another 'Apple gets Samsung product banned' lawsuit.

Its old, its pathetic. Whats even more stupid is that this is an old model and its been changed in later models to avoid such infringement.

The point here is that Apple is using a bunch of VERY ambiguous patents to stop competition. This hurts the consumer.

Agree

Never thought I'd admit this after a decade of using Apple systems, but I'm not proud of their recent years with regards to these suits. Whether they have merit or not, Apple has a ton of cash they're sitting on, and it seems they're more interested in using it for these types of monopolistic maneuvers and strong arming.

No, it's not good in ANY way for the consumer.
It's only beneficial for Apple in a near monopolistic way.

What's the point? The Nexus 7 has just killed any Android tablets that are this old. Android has many heads. Apple can't go after all off them.

What does the amount of cash have to do with anything? If someone is stealing its stealing. Period! Robin Hood mentality doesn't play here.

The issue at hand is where does it stop. I don't believe that Apple's goal in this case isn't really about past transgressions. Its about having a precedent so that when apple releases more advanced designs on this or any other product (Could be the TV) that Samsung or any other vendor can't just turn on the design copier and pump out look alikes. Samsung is also in a unique position being a component supplier for Apple. I would have to think that this allows them to have an idea about sizing, etc and then quickly pump out products. If the new iPhone has a screen size that is in fact larger, could be why the SIII released their phone with this large screen ahead of the iPhone launch.

 

[KnightWRX]

While that is the legal issue, I guarantee the look of everything is what Steve saw years back and went ballistic. Then he told people to find a patent on which to base a lawsuit. The constant denial of people's thoughts and mindset is ridiculous.

Beyond what is a legal issue, I don't really give a damn if Microsoft takes photocopiers to OS X or Samsung users 24th century technology to replicate iPads with a Samsung logo on them. I also don't care if Apple decides to change the label marked "Android v4.1" and slap a iOS 7 on there.

I buy the products I want that fit my needs and as long as they face no legal issues, I'm happy. Anything else is between corporations to sort out and none of my business.

----------

Given the number of lawsuits, was this one definitely on "look and feel"?

Pretty much :

http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

That's the whole of Apple's complaint. Trademark (icons), Trade dress (packaging), Design patents. There's a few utility patents for touchscreens in there.

 

[jdodoubleg]

Except the ban was granted for the design patents (D677, D889) not over the Trade dress parts of the complaint. So no, this isn't about "Stealing Apple's trade dress" (you can't really "steal" trade dress anyhow).

Part of the complaint is for Trade Dress.

Definition via Wikipedia -Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers

 

[KnightWRX]

Part of the complaint is for Trade Dress.

I think I said that. *Looks at quoted text*. Why would you look at that, yes, yes I did.

However, like I said, this injunction isn't about Trade dress, it was granted on the basis of the design patent, D889 to be exact (the Judge apparently hasn't ruled on D677 yet).

So no need to quote me the definition of Trade dress, I know about it.

 

[kdarling]

That's what bothers me about the case. Samsung's intention was to mimic. That may not meet the criteria for patent infringement, but IMHO there is enough there to ban the sales of a product that was clearly meant to copy

Ah. To me, words like "mimic" and "copy" infer knock-offs, clones, exact copies. Products which take no effort, and that are meant to deceive the buyer.

Samsung wasn't trying to fool anyone into thinking their tablet was an iPad, and I suspect they had to work hard to come up with details such as icons that conveyed a similar feeling without actually infringing on Apple's trademarks for each one. (I've studied the trademarks, and Samsung isn't even close in most.)

I'm not emotionally invested in either company, but find the legal tangles interesting.

I feel like I would about a new tennis shoe style that becomes popular. Certainly everyone else is going to try to make very similar shoes, while trying not to directly infringe. It's a commonplace scenario.

In this case, however, somehow the basic shape of such a shoe got patented, not the exact product in question (which is the iPad with Home button). IMO, there's nothing uniquely ornamental about it, which is what design patents are for.

 

[Geckotek]

Perhaps so, but, in this instance, all four judges who have looked at this disagree with you.

Wrong, it's not the judge's job to determine if the patent process was valid. It's the judge's job to determine if the patent infringes. It does not speak toward the validity of our patent process in any way.

 

[JAT]

Samsung wasn't trying to fool anyone into thinking their tablet was an iPad, and I suspect they had to work hard to come up with details such as icons that conveyed a similar feeling without actually infringing on Apple's trademarks for each one. (I've studied the trademarks, and Samsung isn't even close in most.)

See, I get the opposite feeling from the same Samsung actions. 'Trying hard to convey a similar feeling' is precisely what gets people annoyed, and that IS trying to copy to too great of an extent. If they were simply making their own product, like Microsoft (finally), it wouldn't bring the iPad to mind at all. It would just bring competition with the iPad to mind. But, I'm sorry, when I first saw the Galaxy, "they're copying the iPad" was the first stray thought through my head. The freaking boxes even look the same. Didn't have that about the Xoom, for instance. (more like "will that break if I touch it?")

The legal actions are different, of course.

 

[MonkeySee....]

You didn't really understand my post at all.

The consumer (who's point I was putting across) doesn't give a rats ass what the lawsuit is about. All the consumer knows is that its yet another 'Apple gets Samsung product banned' lawsuit.

Its old, its pathetic. Whats even more stupid is that this is an old model and its been changed in later models to avoid such infringement.

The point here is that Apple is using a bunch of VERY ambiguous patents to stop competition. This hurts the consumer.

The "consumer" probably doesn't know any thing about these lawsuits. Only us nerd who read these rumour sites.

 

[rmwebs]

The "consumer" probably doesn't know any thing about these lawsuits. Only us nerd who read these rumour sites.

Given that pretty much every single one has been reported all over UK TV I find that hard to believe...

 

[MonkeySee....]

Given that pretty much every single one has been reported all over UK TV I find that hard to believe...

Really? like where. I've never seen or heard of these patents outside these sites.

 

[boomish]

I'm not a idea hard Apple fanboy, but this blatant copying of a design and concept is just cheap Korean Clone stuff from a company with no morales. Just as I wouldn't buy a certain make car or fridge, I shall endeavour to not buy Samsung again!
I see nothing wrong in that and ask others to do the same, their philosophy is flood the market with cheap copies, Apple is doomed to try and stop them all.

 

[reefoid]

Given that pretty much every single one has been reported all over UK TV I find that hard to believe...

Really? Not sure what TV channels you watch, but I don't recall seeing anything about this on any mainstream TV news, only on tech specific shows such as BBC Click.

The only other outlets I've seen reporting on it occasionally are sensationalist rags like the Daily Mail.

The average consumer knows little, if anything, about this stuff, and cares even less.

 

[rmwebs]

Really? Not sure what TV channels you watch, but I don't recall seeing anything about this on any mainstream TV news, only on tech specific shows such as BBC Click.

The only other outlets I've seen reporting on it occasionally are sensationalist rags like the Daily Mail.

The average consumer knows little, if anything, about this stuff, and cares even less.

Really? like where. I've never seen or heard of these patents outside these sites.

It was on "BBC Breakfast" on wednesday morning, and was on Sky News (not sure of the program) last night, must have been about half eleven. Admittedly both pieces were headline-only with no real coverage, but it was mentioned.

 

[Kurwenal]

Wrong, it's not the judge's job to determine if the patent process was valid.

Well, that will certainly come as a surprise to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A quote from it's opinion in this case:

In addressing the D'889 patent, the tablet computer design patent, the district court concluded that Apple had shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from Samsung's alleged infringement. However, the court denied injunctive relief because it found that Apple had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. In particular, it found that [*31] Samsung had raised a substantial question as to the validity of the D'889 patent. We sustain the court's finding of a likelihood of irreparable harm, but we hold that the court erred in its analysis of the validity issue.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9720, *30-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).

 

[Peace]

You can add the Nexus phone now .

 

[thuchu1]

Exactly, but it's going to be difficult for Samsung to hold that line now, seeing that people that took time to build something for themselves (MSFT) produced very different competing products and designs, it just took time.

Today, years after their original introduction we finally see competing products that weren't produced to copy Apple's idea, so their are obviously not the only way to solve the mobile problem.

All MSFT design are pretty different and rely on a different usage case of a tablet or phone, then there is the Kindle fire, another idea of a tablet etc.

This perfectly accompanies my post. It's hard not to come off as an Applethumper on here, I just love Apple things so much I don't really check into the other options too much. I'm a over of good designs, and as you said, Microsoft found their way into a new corner of the market instead of trying to copy-cat their way to seem like they are the same and get people to taking the cheaper option.

 

[aerok]

They employed the guy who designed it for Jailbreak a long time ago.

And the notification on Android was available before the jailbreak guy released his hack...

 

[G51989]

Wow! you got a product that samsung doesn't actually produce anymore, or sell?

That wasn't a waste of money.

 

[mark28]

This is stupid! I have an iPad and love it, but fail to see how the Tab is remotely a copy in any way. For one, it's nowhere near as good in my book. What about this thing did they find to be so close to an iPad? It's flat? It's thin? It's a rectangle? All tablets will be. (Except for the "The Pyramid" )

I don't get it. I agree, this all should end. Apple looks petty here.

Edit: Does anybody have a link showing the comparison of both units highlighting the parts that Apple claims to be infringing? I'd like to be a bit more educated on the subject.

If Apple was manufacturing dishes, nobody would be allowed to make white circular thin dishes without getting sued by Apple.

 

[Geckotek]

If Apple was manufacturing dishes, nobody would be allowed to make white circular thin dishes without getting sued by Apple.

THIS IS A PERFECT PARALLEL!! That is essentially what this patent does! It's ridiculous what the USPTO is allowing to be patented these days.

 

[KdParker]

I'm going to take the 'ignorant consumer' view point here with this:

"Who gives a damn if it has the same rounded corners, or the same thickness aluminum"

Seriously, at the end of the day the actual DESIGN of a tablet means squat. It's all about price, and what OS its running. People choose the iPad for the ecosystem, not because it's got a shiny surface. People generally choose Android systems if they either dont like iOS, dont want to spend as much money, or genuinely prefer android.

This case actually doesn't have that much of an impact, as mentioned in the lower half of the article, its only the Galaxy 10.1 - I'm not privy to Samsung's operations, however I believe they have already got a number of different models, none of which Apple have attempted to block (yet).

Personally I'd like this crap to just end. It's pathetic and boring. Let them sell their tablet. The consumer will decide if it'll be a success or failure, and given that the Android Tablet market isn't really going to well, I'd bet that the 10.1 would be discontinued within a year.

(Sidenote: User of iOS and Android but have to admit I prefer the stability of iOS. That being said, I do like what Android stands for, and do still develop on it regularly)

Can someone give the layman's version of what patents have been violated?

 

[kdarling]

Can someone give the layman's version of what patents have been violated?

No violations have been legally determined yet. That's still for a jury to figure out.

Long story short, Apple won a pre-trial injunction over this Design Patent, claiming they would suffer "irreparable harm" if Samsung continued to sell the Tab 10.1 until the trial was over, because it looked too much like an iPad.

Btw, Samsung got around a similar preliminary injunction in Germany last year by increasing the metal trim a bit and moving their speakers, to create the Tab 10.1N version, which was okayed by the court:

 

[Allegrotechie]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted a preliminary injunction that would allow Apple to bar Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States while a full trial on Samsung's alleged design infringement is conducted.

Image


Enforcement of the sales ban required that Apple post a $2.6 million bond from which damages to Samsung would be paid if Apple ultimately lost its infringement case, and FOSS Patents reports that Apple has indeed moved quickly to post the bond.Samsung has filed a request for a stay of the injunction while it appeals the decision, but for the time being Samsung is subject to the ban.

The ban only applies to the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Samsung now offers several other tablet models that are not affected by the injunction, so it is unclear exactly how much of an economic effect the ban will have on Samsung. But the injunction does strengthen Apple's standing as it pursues this and other lawsuits against Samsung in courts around the world.

Article Link: U.S. Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales Goes into Effect as Apple Posts Bond

I hope we can still order the Galaxy Nexus from the Google Play store. The ban doesn't make sense because Google themselves still sells it.

 

[Kreten]

I'm not a idea hard Apple fanboy, but this blatant copying of a design and concept is just cheap Korean Clone stuff from a company with no morales. Just as I wouldn't buy a certain make car or fridge, I shall endeavour to not buy Samsung again!
I see nothing wrong in that and ask others to do the same, their philosophy is flood the market with cheap copies, Apple is doomed to try and stop them all.

I agree with these copies and don't see why Mercedes isn't suing Hyundai for exact copy of new Mercedes looks wise when debadged you think it's Mercedes.
Samsung itself is big company and it's really sad that they can't come up with their own ideas. Why didn't they have any of these touch screen phones before iphone. Why does Samsung copy apple so much that it even 100% copies the packaging and the power cords. Is samsung that dumb that they can't even come up with with their own box for the phones they try to say are better than original iPhone,iPad etc.

Apple can't sue someone just because their product looks similar in shape but can when that company tries to mimic the exact copy looks wise. All that apple should do is show the judge Samsungs Tab's box that it comes in and they should win