UK Judge Rules Samsung Tablets 'Not as Cool' as iPad

Peace said:
"“However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."

How's this one ? HP TC1000

Tablet_HP_TC-1100.jpg
Click to expand...

It's a convertible laptop/tablet. You used the picture for a laptop mode. The correct one is for tablet setup which looks as follows:

main.php
 
Peace said:
That is my point.

Neither the galaxy tab or the ipad have attachable keyboards.

The TC is more of a mini notebook than a real tablet.
Click to expand...

The keyboard was optional so yes, it was a tablet like the iPad or the Galaxy Tab
 
Oletros said:
The keyboard was optional so yes, it was a tablet like the iPad or the Galaxy Tab
Click to expand...

"Optional" ? I'm not sure but I think the TC came with the keyboard attached then you could remove the display and use a pen input.

Original link or it never happened.
 
I'm consistently amazed at how people seem to take this litigation personally, like suggesting that Apple is somehow being 'mean,' or poor Google isn't standing up for itself, or whatever other nonsense.

Apple does not make the law; it works within the legal and statutory framework of the countries in which it operates. If you don't believe that Samsung or Google or any of these other huge entities engages in litigation to protect its products or market (whether you personally agree with the value of their arguments or not), you're crazy. Because of concerns over judicial economy, courts usually desire and/or require that litigants raise any viable, related claims that exist--this generally requires arguing in the alternative, (basically throwing in the kitchen sink). This is going to result in claims that might appear goofy or even "frivolous" when taken out-of-context.
 
vmachiel said:
Whaha this post made my day. Esspecially the "Apple has 21 days to appeal" part:) I wouldn't:)
Click to expand...

You wouldn't appeal a judgement that bascically invalidated your design on the basis it lacks "originality" and represents common elements to all products in the bigger family of tablets, thus invalidating any chances you may have at litigating against products using the same front design as you are ?

Just because after calling you an original copycat of what has been out there for years, the judge said yours was "cool" ?

:eek:
 
KnightWRX said:
You wouldn't appeal a judgement that bascically invalidated your design on the basis it lacks "originality" and represents common elements to all products in the bigger family of tablets, thus invalidating any chances you may have at litigating against products using the same front design as you are ?

Just because after calling you an original copycat of what has been out there for years, the judge said yours was "cool" ?

:eek:
Click to expand...

And just who defines "bigger family of tablets" ?

In this day and age what IS a tablet anyway ?
 
The funny thing is that if Apple appeals this decision, they will be basically saying "NUH UH! Our iPads AREN'T as cool as the Galaxy tablets!!"
 
If Steve was still alive, this quote would find itself on a presentation slide at the next iPad keynote. :D
 
emt1 said:
The funny thing is that if Apple appeals this decision, they will be basically saying "NUH UH! Our iPads AREN'T as cool as the Galaxy tablets!!"
Click to expand...

Not really...litigants appeal portions of judgments all the time, even if the ruling ultimately went in their favor.
 
JGowan said:
If Steve was still alive, this quote would find itself on a presentation slide at the next iPad keynote. :D
Click to expand...

I am surprised that people can't recognize obvious sarcasm in judge's remark. The "Samsung’s tablet isn’t "cool" enough to be confused with Apple’s iPad" is a clear jab at Apple not Samsung. The judge is clearly making fun of Apple attempts to claim that their design is unique and cool when in fact it's just an amalgamation of design elements widely used by everyone in the industry (as the court ruling shows).
 
ozaz said:
What you report is still more than I care to know.
Why not create a patents/legal Blog to keep this stuff off the front page?
Click to expand...

In order to avoid a story on the front page that I am not interested in reading, I am lucky that I have purchased a mouse with a scroll wheel. That is a little plastic device in the middle of the mouse, that allows me to move on to the next article. Quite ingenious! I have also heard that those not so fortunate and technically sophisticated as I am, can use a thin area of the window to right known, I think, as the scrollbar...though that is just a rumor I heard.
 
AbyssImpact said:
My iPad 3 is amazingly hot when playing videos and playing the latest games. I wish Apple made more vents on the iPad like the iPad 1.
Click to expand...

are you using a cover? does it "burn" through the cover? like can u feel it on your hands even though you're using a cover?

its already bothering me when my iphone gets hot and i'm getting my iPad 3 tmrw. my iPad 2 never got warm

---

thats the problem with "simplistic"

everything will look similar to it, its not even a choice unless you add 834380480 buttons just to make it look differently even though those buttons would be pointless
 
Last edited:
MacRumors said:
Birss ruled that the Galaxy tablets' thinner profiles and "unusual details" on the back of the devices made them different enough from the iPad that they were not too similar to Apple's design.
Click to expand...

  1. Is there enough distinction when both tablets have a cover?
  2. Will Apple appeal to argue that the iPad is not the coolest?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Peace said:
Prior art. Let's see.

This is one of the Judge's examples of prior art :
Click to expand...

In a patent application, you would show "prior art" which is things related to your patent, or similar to it, but not quite the same. So you basically say "I know these things existed, but they are not quite the same" and nobody can accuse you of hiding them. Of course your opponent in court would try to find prior art that _is_ the same as yours. This image seems to be the first category ("yes, this thing had rounded corners but it also had a huge keyboard attached, which makes it different from the iPad").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top