PDA

View Full Version : Apple's lawsuit about the Galaxy Tab



forrestcupp
September 25th, 2011, 07:15 PM
There was a thread a while back about Apple's lawsuit over the Samsung Galaxy Tab. Back when I saw that thread, I thought Apple was being ridiculous.

Last night, I was at Best Buy looking at tablets, and I saw a 10" Galaxy Tab for the first time in real life. One table over, they had iPads. I was pretty shocked that from the front, other than the dimensions and the unobtrusive button on the iPad, the black Galaxy Tab looked exactly like the black iPad 2. I mean they were identical, except the dimensions were slightly different.

After seeing that, I scaled back my negative opinion about that lawsuit. There are a lot of tablets that all copy ideas, but the Galaxy Tab was the only one that looked almost exactly like the black iPad.

JDShu
September 25th, 2011, 07:30 PM
The Galaxy Tab could look 100% identical to the iPad and I wouldn't consider it worthy of a patent lawsuit. I believe this belongs in the area of trademark law instead. (For the particular point you're bringing up)

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 07:59 PM
The Galaxy Tab could look 100% identical to the iPad and I wouldn't consider it worthy of a patent lawsuit. I believe this belongs in the area of trademark law instead. (For the particular point you're bringing up)

Incorrect...

"A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities."

"A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to the creator of an original work or their assignee for a limited period of time upon disclosure of the work. This includes the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. In most jurisdictions copyright arises upon fixation and does not need to be registered. Copyright owners have the exclusive statutory right to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time,"

BeRoot ReBoot
September 25th, 2011, 08:02 PM
The Galaxy Tab could look 100% identical to the iPad

If that were the case, Apple wouldn't need photoshop it to look even more similar.

Fact is, just about every modern tablet looks the same - that is to say, they're all black rectangles with rounded corners. You shouldn't be able to patent a geometric shape.

JDShu
September 25th, 2011, 08:10 PM
Incorrect...

"A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities."

"A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to the creator of an original work or their assignee for a limited period of time upon disclosure of the work. This includes the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. In most jurisdictions copyright arises upon fixation and does not need to be registered. Copyright owners have the exclusive statutory right to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time,"

Er... and the point the OP is bringing up is that the Galaxy Tab looks exactly like the iPad. In fact OP was pretty specific that it's not about copying ideas.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 08:25 PM
Er... and the point the OP is bringing up is that the Galaxy Tab looks exactly like the iPad. In fact OP was pretty specific that it's not about copying ideas.

Still does not make it about a Trade mark. Is a Ford Fiesta a Trade mark? is a Sony 3D Plasma TV a trade mark? ...... No

MacDonalds golden hoops are, Fords blue oval is.

earthpigg
September 25th, 2011, 08:37 PM
At a distance, it can sometimes be pretty hard to tell various cars apart.

I've walked up to Toyotas and Hondas in the parking lot many times, thinking I was approaching my Ford Focus. That doesn't mean they should all be involved in litigation over the issue.

Now, for these slate computers... there's only one form factor, and it was invented by Gene Roddenberry and his buddies for Star Trek: The Next Generation. There may have been some other iteration before 1988, and if there is please point it out. (We've all realized what the iPad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PADD#PADD) was named after, right?)

I'm really not sure it is reasonable for "rectangular touch-screen computer of x:y aspect ratio that is z thick" to be considered an "invention" of Apple. It may or may not be "legal", but it certainly isn't reasonable.

http://moniqueblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/PADDtext.jpg

JDShu
September 25th, 2011, 08:40 PM
Still does not make it about a Trade mark. Is a Ford Fiesta a Trade mark? is a Sony 3D Plasma TV a trade mark? ...... No

MacDonalds golden hoops are, Fords blue oval is.

I'd say it's a grey area, similar to red shoe soles (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/12/earlyshow/main20091565.shtml). Personally, I don't think it would win in a court of law, but if you want to sue a company because their product looks the same as yours, it seems like trademark law is the most relevant.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 08:42 PM
At a distance, it can sometimes be pretty hard to tell various cars apart.

I've walked up to Toyotas and Hondas in the parking lot many times, thinking I was approaching my Ford Focus. That doesn't mean they should all be involved in litigation over the issue.

Now, for these slate computers... there's only one form factor, and it was invented by Gene Roddenberry and his buddies for Star Trek: The Next Generation. There may have been some other iteration before 1988, and if there is please point it out. (We've all realized what the iPad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PADD#PADD) was named after, right?)

I'm really not sure it is reasonable for "rectangular touch-screen computer of x:y aspect ratio that is z thick" to be considered an "invention" of Apple. It may or may not be "legal", but it certainly isn't reasonable.

http://moniqueblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/PADDtext.jpg

The Star Trek thing was not a working product or on sale. It was a Movie prop, probably made of Styene or Balsa wood.

pkg9991
September 25th, 2011, 08:44 PM
what's the big deal if the looks match, hardware is still so different

earthpigg
September 25th, 2011, 09:23 PM
The Star Trek thing was not a working product or on sale. It was a Movie prop, probably made of Styene or Balsa wood.

Yes, of course.

Consider it a video application for IP ownership. They call it prior art, not prior functional product. :)

HTC pays Mr. Lucas to use the name "Droids", after all. It is a bit different (trademark vs patent), but if the lawyers love to lump it all together and call it "Intellectual Property" then, well, ok lets do that.

forrestcupp
September 25th, 2011, 10:36 PM
If that were the case, Apple wouldn't need photoshop it to look even more similar.

Fact is, just about every modern tablet looks the same - that is to say, they're all black rectangles with rounded corners. You shouldn't be able to patent a geometric shape.In my opinion, they didn't even need to photoshop it to make it look closer. Other than the black, unobtrusive button and the slight dimensional difference, you can't tell them apart at all, until you turn them on.

As for the 2nd thing you said, that's not true. Best Buy has a lot of tablets on display, and every one of them is completely distinguishable, other than the Galaxy Tab. The others don't much look like the iPad at all.


Personally, I don't think it would win in a court of law, but if you want to sue a company because their product looks the same as yours, it seems like trademark law is the most relevant.
I'm not sure it would hold up in court, but let's not forget that it initially did win an injunction in the EU. I'm not saying that Apple should win this, but based on what I saw, I'm less hostile toward Apple and a little more understanding than I was. I think it was a dumb thing for Samsung to make it look that similar.

thatguruguy
September 25th, 2011, 10:38 PM
FWIW, the term you're looking for is not trademark, it's trade dress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress).

JDShu
September 26th, 2011, 01:25 AM
FWIW, the term you're looking for is not trademark, it's trade dress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress).

Ah, learn something new every day :)

thatguruguy
September 26th, 2011, 01:52 AM
I'm here to help. I'm a helping helper.

lisati
September 26th, 2011, 02:14 AM
Hmmmm..... Apple vs PC?.......wait.....that's another can of worms. It can all get rather frivolous, can't it?

PhillyPhil
September 26th, 2011, 05:49 AM
Last night, I was at Best Buy looking at tablets, and I saw a 10" Galaxy Tab for the first time in real life. One table over, they had iPads. I was pretty shocked that from the front, other than the dimensions and the unobtrusive button on the iPad, the black Galaxy Tab looked exactly like the black iPad 2. I mean they were identical, except the dimensions were slightly different.


So they're the same except where they're different? That applies equally well to any two objects on earth.



After seeing that, I scaled back my negative opinion about that lawsuit. There are a lot of tablets that all copy ideas, but the Galaxy Tab was the only one that looked almost exactly like the black iPad.

I'd say you had a negative opinion for the wrong reasons.
I don't think you should think this lawsuit is ridiculous because the Tab "doesn't really look like an iPad", but because looking like something else shouldn't be a valid basis for a lawsuit.



In my opinion, they didn't even need to photoshop it to make it look closer. Other than the black, unobtrusive button and the slight dimensional difference, you can't tell them apart at all, until you turn them on.


Shave our heads and perhaps no-one could tell you and I apart, except for the "slight dimensional differences".

tgalati4
September 26th, 2011, 05:57 AM
I would definitely like an LCARs tablet running Ubuntu.

MonolithImmortal
September 26th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Relevant: http://www.techlicious.com/images/computers/samsung-galaxy-tab-8_9-vs-10_1-vs-ipad2-front.jpg

earthpigg
September 26th, 2011, 07:20 AM
Relevant: http://www.techlicious.com/images/computers/samsung-galaxy-tab-8_9-vs-10_1-vs-ipad2-front.jpg

I could easily put three three revolver pistols made by different companies next to each other and accomplish a similar effect.

I'm not at all sold on this notion that a shape and color combination is an invention.

PC_load_letter
September 26th, 2011, 07:26 AM
The Star Trek thing was not a working product or on sale. It was a Movie prop, probably made of Styene or Balsa wood.

IIRC, I read somewhere that Samsung's defense in the lawsuit in Germany hinges on their claim that the iPad's design patent should not have been awarded to Apple at first place because the iPad is too similar to the pad "designed" by Stanley Kubrik in the movie "Space Oddessey 2001".

PC_load_letter
September 26th, 2011, 07:36 AM
...
I'm not at all sold on this notion that a shape and color combination is an invention.

Totally agree, now if the Galaxy tab was called the iTab and was made by a company named ATTLE or AFFLE, then the lawsuit would make more sense to me.

fontis
September 26th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Relevant: http://www.techlicious.com/images/computers/samsung-galaxy-tab-8_9-vs-10_1-vs-ipad2-front.jpg

They all look different. And it's easy to see them apart as well :s

Copyleft for the win!

zeroseven0183
September 26th, 2011, 12:04 PM
Have you guys watched Patent Absurdity? Although the documentary focused on software, it has a lot of insights about how those guys "broke the system".

http://patentabsurdity.com/

forrestcupp
September 26th, 2011, 12:09 PM
I'm here to help. I'm a helping helper.Show me what to do.


So they're the same except where they're different? That applies equally well to any two objects on earth.
If I saw a Transformer, I would know it's a Transformer. If I saw a Xoom, I would know it's a Xoom. If I saw about any other tablet, I would know it wasn't an iPad. But if I saw a Galaxy Tab that wasn't turned on and it wasn't sitting right next to an iPad, it would be hard to tell whether it was an iPad or Galaxy Tab.

I'm not saying I believe Apple has the right to shut them down. I'm just saying that the Galaxy Tab does look almost identical to the iPad, and every other tablet I looked at did not. Even though Apple may not have the right to shut them down, it was stupid for Samsung to not differentiate the design a little more.

fontis
September 26th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Show me what to do.


If I saw a Transformer, I would know it's a Transformer. If I saw a Xoom, I would know it's a Xoom. If I saw about any other tablet, I would know it wasn't an iPad. But if I saw a Galaxy Tab that wasn't turned on and it wasn't sitting right next to an iPad, it would be hard to tell whether it was an iPad or Galaxy Tab.

I'm not saying I believe Apple has the right to shut them down. I'm just saying that the Galaxy Tab does look almost identical to the iPad, and every other tablet I looked at did not. Even though Apple may not have the right to shut them down, it was stupid for Samsung to not differentiate the design a little more.

To be fair, the Galaxy Tab follows the design of the all the other Galaxy series. And those design plans were out far ahead of the iPad ones to begin with.

If the first car I ever saw was a Skoda Octavia, then of course ever Volkswagen Passat I'd see after that would seem as a rip-off. Doesn't mean it is, just means my observational skills are not objective since I don't know all facts and thus making my decisions subjectively.

Apple made millions based on what they advertised as a superior product which offered exclusive performance at a very hefty price. Samsung shattered that completely with their Galaxy series. The Galaxy S phone was released around the same time as Apples flagship iPhone 4 and it's a much better phone. And now their iPad is being dominated by the Galaxy Tab.
With Android taking off thanks to great hardware, apple are not by creating better products at reasonable prices but by suing everyone they can.

ninjaaron
September 26th, 2011, 01:23 PM
The Star Trek thing was not a working product or on sale. It was a Movie prop, probably made of Styene or Balsa wood.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/The_More_You_Know.jpg

forrestcupp
September 26th, 2011, 02:12 PM
To be fair, the Galaxy Tab follows the design of the all the other Galaxy series. And those design plans were out far ahead of the iPad ones to begin with.

If the first car I ever saw was a Skoda Octavia, then of course ever Volkswagen Passat I'd see after that would seem as a rip-off. Doesn't mean it is, just means my observational skills are not objective since I don't know all facts and thus making my decisions subjectively.If what you're saying is true, then that's a good point.


And now their iPad is being dominated by the Galaxy Tab. The iPad still has between 70-80% of the tablet market share. So how can you say that one specific Android tablet is "dominating" the iPad?

fontis
September 26th, 2011, 03:19 PM
The iPad still has between 70-80% of the tablet market share. So how can you say that one specific Android tablet is "dominating" the iPad?

Well, the bans are in put in place in Europe afaik, and I know Samsung has been extremely successful in Europe as well. But then again, the European market is way less Apple-fanatic than the US market. Or so it seems :P

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 04:44 PM
So they're the same except where they're different? That applies equally well to any two objects on earth.

You are being intellectually dishonest. The size difference usually doesn't matter if the product in question looks like another product. Otherwise you would be put in an absurd situation where companies could wholesale copy other products simply by making them smaller or larger.


I'd say you had a negative opinion for the wrong reasons.
I don't think you should think this lawsuit is ridiculous because the Tab "doesn't really look like an iPad", but because looking like something else shouldn't be a valid basis for a lawsuit.

I disagree. The looks and feel should be protected because it is part of the brand identity. Design is a core part of Apple's brand and they should be able to protect it from infringement. The only question is how far that protection should go.


Shave our heads and perhaps no-one could tell you and I apart, except for the "slight dimensional differences".

You are again trying to minimize what this lawsuits are about by using an absurd example. People aren't manufactured on a conveyor belt.

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Totally agree, now if the Galaxy tab was called the iTab and was made by a company named ATTLE or AFFLE, then the lawsuit would make more sense to me.

That would largely be a trademark case and it would be a different issue altogether. You don't avoid design infringement simply by changing the name of your product or company.

Mikeb85
September 26th, 2011, 05:00 PM
My parents have a picture frame that looks exactly like the iPad...(and sees more use as well) I never realized a black rectangle with rounded edges and a screen were something you could patent (Panasonic is in trouble too, my TV looks like a giant iPad, kind of like how an iPad is a giant iPod touch...).

Oh well, IMO the tablet is not going to last, I'd rather replace my current phone with something like the Samsung Note (http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/index.html?type=find), and only have to carry around 1 mobile device...

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:03 PM
To be fair, the Galaxy Tab follows the design of the all the other Galaxy series. And those design plans were out far ahead of the iPad ones to begin with.

Not true. Samsung Galaxy Tab came months after the iPad. Tab 10.1 was actually redesigned after Apple unveiled iPad 2 (http://www.galaxytabs.com/2011/03/galaxy-tab-10-1-redesign/). You even have a Samsung executive saying this on the record.


If the first car I ever saw was a Skoda Octavia, then of course ever Volkswagen Passat I'd see after that would seem as a rip-off. Doesn't mean it is, just means my observational skills are not objective since I don't know all facts and thus making my decisions subjectively.

Those two cars are actually pretty distinct. Car manufactures usually have specific designs that are part of their brand and that get incorporated in every car they make. A BMW and Mercedes have clear design differentiation and most people can easily tell the difference between the two.


Apple made millions based on what they advertised as a superior product which offered exclusive performance at a very hefty price.

The entire computer industry got caught with their pants down when Apple announced the iPad at $499. The first non-Apple tablets use stock Android and Google rushed to design a tablet interface very quickly because they too got caught unprepared. That's why they aren't releasing the Honeycomb source code.



Samsung shattered that completely with their Galaxy series.

Market indicators disagree with you. Apple still holds some 90% of the market share. Samsung might have sent millions of units to stores but only a fraction of those got sold. There is an estimated 2 million Android tablets in the hand of consumers. Contrast that with ~30 million iPads that have been sold to end consumers.


The Galaxy S phone was released around the same time as Apples flagship iPhone 4 and it's a much better phone. And now their iPad is being dominated by the Galaxy Tab.

And yet iPhone 4 is still hugely popular and is selling like crazy. After 17 months on the market.


With Android taking off thanks to great hardware, apple are not by creating better products at reasonable prices but by suing everyone they can.

What a fanboy-ish statement with no merit or rationale.

Mikeb85
September 26th, 2011, 05:13 PM
Market indicators disagree with you. Apple still holds some 90% of the market share. Samsung might have sent millions of units to stores but only a fraction of those got sold. There is an estimated 2 million Android tablets in the hand of consumers. Contrast that with ~30 million iPads that have been sold to end consumers.

And yet iPhone 4 is still hugely popular and is selling like crazy. After 17 months on the market.


Apple doesn't dominate everywhere... http://www.mobisights.com/2011/09/18/samsung-crushes-apple-opening-rounds-indian-tablet-war/

Apple is popular because it's fashionable. People who don't know a thing about computers buy their products because they look 'cool'. I succumbed a while back, decided to give Apple a chance because everyone said the iPhone was so great, bought an iPhone 3G and now want to smash it against a wall. Apple was also big in the 80's/early 90's... Look what happened to them then.

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:17 PM
People should really take a step back and examine this whole issue holistically.

Apple isn't suing Samsung because they want to force everyone out of the market. They are doing it because they believe that Samsung copied large portions of their IP.

I was taking a cautious approach to this whole thing but after seeing more and more of Samsung's recent products I'm leaning toward Apple having a really decent case.

There is uncanny similarity between various products and parts of said products to Apple's IP.

Why does the Galaxy S look similar to iPhone 3G/S? Why does the front of Galaxy S2 look similar to iPhone 4? Why does the AC adapter of Galaxy S2 look nearly identical to Apple's? Why does part of Touchwiz (Samsung's Android skin) look similar to Apple's Springboard? Why does the Samsung connector look exactly like Apple's? Why does Galaxy Tab's packaging look like the iPad's?

There is too much similarity between Apple's and Samsung's products to simply dismiss the lawsuits as frivolous.

Here is a good read on the California case: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

aaaantoine
September 26th, 2011, 05:20 PM
The Galaxy has a polished backplate whereas the iPad does not.

The Galaxy screen shape is in more 16:10 or 16:9 territory, whereas the iPad's screen shape is 4:3.

The Galaxy is also missing the giant Apple logo on the backplate.

These differences are subtle, but important.

Concerning similarities, Apple was smart in not putting any branding or icons on the front panel other than the 90-degree-symmetrical square. Samsung is simply taking a page from that chapter. Maybe they could have done something more differentiating than an all-piano-black front bezel, but design wise there aren't a whole lot of appealing options there.

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:26 PM
Apple doesn't dominate everywhere... http://www.mobisights.com/2011/09/18/samsung-crushes-apple-opening-rounds-indian-tablet-war/

That is a drop in a bucket. We are only talking about some 85000 tablets in a country of more than a billion people.

Apple never catered toward cheap(er) electronics.


Apple is popular because it's fashionable. People who don't know a thing about computers buy their products because they look 'cool'. I succumbed a while back, decided to give Apple a chance because everyone said the iPhone was so great, bought an iPhone 3G and now want to smash it against a wall.

Apple isn't popular because it is only fashionable. It is popular because they make great products which connect with people on an emotional level.

Look at their iPad commercials. They don't show you how great the specs are. They show you what you can do with them, how you can do things that matter to you with the iPad.


Apple was also big in the 80's/early 90's... Look what happened to them then.

They had a rebirth and are now one of the largest companies in the world, with extremely profitable product lines? Great example.

Mikeb85
September 26th, 2011, 05:30 PM
Apple isn't suing Samsung because they want to force everyone out of the market. They are doing it because they believe that Samsung copied large portions of their IP.


Then why are they suing HTC, Motorola and other manufacturers? They already tried suing Nokia (and lost badly).

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:35 PM
The Galaxy has a polished backplate whereas the iPad does not.

True but the front and general look and feel is pretty similar.


The Galaxy screen shape is in more 16:10 or 16:9 territory, whereas the iPad's screen shape is 4:3.

Doesn't really matter. There is a picture in this thread of all three devices and they look extremely similar. If I wasn't looking for the Home button and that aspect ration difference I couldn't tell one from another.


The Galaxy is also missing the giant Apple logo on the backplate.

Irrelevant. That is no defense.


These differences are subtle, but important.

Not to your average consumer. Nerds make a big deal out of them not moms and dads.


Concerning similarities, Apple was smart in not putting any branding or icons on the front panel other than the 90-degree-symmetrical square. Samsung is simply taking a page from that chapter. Maybe they could have done something more differentiating than an all-piano-black front bezel, but design wise there aren't a whole lot of appealing options there.

There are marketing pics of the Tab where it does have the Samsung logo on the front but I have no idea if they ever put it on the front since there are at least 2 different Galaxy Tabs (10.1 and 10.1v) and there was redesign once the iPad 2 was announced.

Mikeb85
September 26th, 2011, 05:36 PM
Apple isn't popular because it is only fashionable. It is popular because they make great products which connect with people on an emotional level.

Look at their iPad commercials. They don't show you how great the specs are. They show you what you can do with them, how you can do things that matter to you with the iPad.

I'll admit their marketing is genius, their products however aren't. What can an iPhone or iPad do that an Android device can't?



They had a rebirth and are now one of the largest companies in the world, with extremely profitable product lines? Great example.

No, before that. They nearly went bankrupt, and had to bring Steve Jobs back. Microsoft also had to invest in them to keep them alive. Apple is once again sowing the seeds of their own demise, although it's probably 5-10 years down the road...

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:40 PM
Then why are they suing HTC, Motorola and other manufacturers? They already tried suing Nokia (and lost badly).

AFAIK they are only suing Motorola and Samsung over design infringement. The rest are getting sued over various other things.

The Nokia case wasn't exactly lost. AFAIK Nokia sued Apple over some patents. Apple had a problem with Nokia wanting lots and lots of money (more then Nokia charged others) for some of those patents which were part of mobile technology standards (think GSM/3G stuff). Apple counter-sued and they settled. Apparently Apple paid less than Nokia initially wanted without having to cross license some of their exclusive patents.

BrokenKingpin
September 26th, 2011, 05:51 PM
Fact is, just about every modern tablet looks the same - that is to say, they're all black rectangles with rounded corners. You shouldn't be able to patent a geometric shape.
++

zekopeko
September 26th, 2011, 05:54 PM
I'll admit their marketing is genius, their products however aren't.

Their marketing is an extension of their company philosophy. Again look at their commercials. It isn't about dual-core processors or how much RAM it has, it is about what you can do with it. How it makes your life easier and lets you focus on thing that matter to you. That is their message.


What can an iPhone or iPad do that an Android device can't?

Android can do plenty that iDevices can't. What makes Apple so successful is that they make those features they have work really good.

A good example are Japanese phones. Japanese phones were/are 5-10 years from their Western counterparts and Japanese customers are buying them based on how many features they have. The problem is that most Japanese phone owners aren't using 90+% of those features because they are buried deep within the unintuitive interface.


No, before that. They nearly went bankrupt, and had to bring Steve Jobs back. Microsoft also had to invest in them to keep them alive. Apple is once again sowing the seeds of their own demise, although it's probably 5-10 years down the road...

So if we look at that example we can expect that they will be on the brink of bankrupcy around 2017-2020. At that point a new Steve Jobs will come and save the company from the brink of it making it extremely successful. Looks like they have nothing to fear.

PC_load_letter
September 26th, 2011, 06:40 PM
That would largely be a trademark case and it would be a different issue altogether. You don't avoid design infringement simply by changing the name of your product or company.

I see, but if the design is too simplistic, what is there to patent, dimensions? And as long as the the Galaxy tab doesn't look identical to the iPad, who determines if it is close enough to warrant an infringement? And what is close enough?

PC_load_letter
September 26th, 2011, 06:52 PM
People should really take a step back and examine this whole issue holistically.

Apple isn't suing Samsung because they want to force everyone out of the market. They are doing it because they believe that Samsung copied large portions of their IP.

I was taking a cautious approach to this whole thing but after seeing more and more of Samsung's recent products I'm leaning toward Apple having a really decent case.

There is uncanny similarity between various products and parts of said products to Apple's IP.

Why does the Galaxy S look similar to iPhone 3G/S? Why does the front of Galaxy S2 look similar to iPhone 4? Why does the AC adapter of Galaxy S2 look nearly identical to Apple's? Why does part of Touchwiz (Samsung's Android skin) look similar to Apple's Springboard? Why does the Samsung connector look exactly like Apple's? Why does Galaxy Tab's packaging look like the iPad's?

There is too much similarity between Apple's and Samsung's products to simply dismiss the lawsuits as frivolous.

Here is a good read on the California case: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Sorry, I made my last post before reading this, so it's not just the design. In this case, I'd agree that Apple has a point there. On the other hand, how hard really was it for Samsung to find a different design?

PhillyPhil
September 27th, 2011, 03:01 AM
People should really take a step back and examine this whole issue holistically.

Apple isn't suing Samsung because they want to force everyone out of the market. They are doing it because they believe that Samsung copied large portions of their IP.

*snip*
Every company on the planet would LOVE to be the only player in their market, Apple included. Apple don't sue for holistic purposes, they sue to improve their bottom line (which is perfectly sensible and logical).


You are being intellectually dishonest. The size difference usually doesn't matter if the product in question looks like another product. Otherwise you would be put in an absurd situation where companies could wholesale copy other products simply by making them smaller or larger.
Neither I nor the post I quoted mentioned size.
The Tab is also not a smaller facsimile of the iPad.
They are different shapes.
BTW, please avoid "intellectually dishonest" - it is subjective, unprovable, and it can be used anywhere by anyone without fear of rebuttal. Be more specific.




I disagree. The looks and feel should be protected because it is part of the brand identity.

Design is a core part of Apple's brand and they should be able to protect it from infringement.

The only question is how far that protection should go.Ok, look and feel is part of your "brand identity". Why should this so-called "brand identity" be protected?

"Design is a core part of Apple's brand..." What does that even mean? What sort of infringement? "Brand infringement"? Why should they be able to?

Yes, it is. That will be different for everyone, but for me: if it's not THE SAME, then there's no problem.



You are again trying to minimize what this lawsuits are about by using an absurd example. People aren't manufactured on a conveyor belt.You've missed the point: I was saying that "slight dimensional differences" are just weasel words for "different shape".



That is their message.

This is why you really have to take your hat off to Apple. A company that can make people care about their "message" instead of the product they sell is truly astounding...

whiskeylover
September 27th, 2011, 03:20 AM
*snip*
This is why you really have to take your hat off to Apple. A company that can make people care about their "message" instead of the product they sell is truly astounding...

In other words, lemmingifying their user base.

I often wonder how Ubuntu users, who're so anti evil-and-closed-sourced-Microsoft, are so easily swayed by iShiny even though Apple is just as much, if not more, evil (and closed sourced.)

PhillyPhil
September 27th, 2011, 03:26 AM
In other words, lemmingifying their user base.

I often wonder how Ubuntu users, who're so anti evil-and-closed-sourced-Microsoft, are so easily swayed by iShiny even though Apple is just as much, if not more, evil (and closed sourced.)

I don't disagree with any of that ;)
...although I might replace "evil" with "unpleasant".

fontis
September 27th, 2011, 04:17 AM
Not true. Samsung Galaxy Tab came months after the iPad. Tab 10.1 was actually redesigned after Apple unveiled iPad 2 (http://www.galaxytabs.com/2011/03/galaxy-tab-10-1-redesign/). You even have a Samsung executive saying this on the record.



Those two cars are actually pretty distinct. Car manufactures usually have specific designs that are part of their brand and that get incorporated in every car they make. A BMW and Mercedes have clear design differentiation and most people can easily tell the difference between the two.



The entire computer industry got caught with their pants down when Apple announced the iPad at $499. The first non-Apple tablets use stock Android and Google rushed to design a tablet interface very quickly because they too got caught unprepared. That's why they aren't releasing the Honeycomb source code.




Market indicators disagree with you. Apple still holds some 90% of the market share. Samsung might have sent millions of units to stores but only a fraction of those got sold. There is an estimated 2 million Android tablets in the hand of consumers. Contrast that with ~30 million iPads that have been sold to end consumers.



And yet iPhone 4 is still hugely popular and is selling like crazy. After 17 months on the market.



What a fanboy-ish statement with no merit or rationale.

The only one here using fanboy rationale is you, trying to put logic and justification to Apples silly claims.

I furthermore never stated that the Tab was released prior to the iPad, I said that the Tab follows the design of the rest of the Galaxy series and those designs were out way before the iPad was.
The devices look different, they have different dimensions and finishes as well. This is one of the most absurd lawsuits filed by another company on the grounds of protecting IP and everyone who isn't an Apple fanboy knows it.

Admittedly, the iDevices started out by offering a superior product compared to the market alternatives (at a high price) but as the market caught up and surpassed them, they are no longer that attractive to anyone other than the Apple cult or the ones who do not see the alternatives in the market.

After a few months of the first quality android devices like HTC Hero (which I think was a great product and on par with iPhone) the only main sustainable argument Apple and their fanboys had were based on the App Store being superior to Android Market. But now, even that argument doesn't sustain itself.

There is now nothing Apple offers at a high price, that 10 others can't do the same or even better at half that price.

earthpigg
September 27th, 2011, 04:28 AM
Not true. Samsung Galaxy Tab came months after the iPad. Tab 10.1 was actually redesigned after Apple unveiled iPad 2 (http://www.galaxytabs.com/2011/03/galaxy-tab-10-1-redesign/). You even have a Samsung executive saying this on the record.


That link says that the only hardware redesign was to make it as thin as their previous tablet (like the iPad 2), forcing them to slightly downgrade the front-facing camera.

forrestcupp
September 27th, 2011, 04:27 PM
There is now nothing Apple offers at a high price, that 10 others can't do the same or even better at half that price.

The only problem with that is that in the tablet realm, most of them don't offer much lower prices than Apple, if at all. And the ones that are significantly lower in price are junk and nowhere near comparable to the iPads in terms of hardware quality. If you objectively compare Android tablets to iPads, you can't deny that none of them have a display that rivals the iPad display. Some of them come close, but even the Transformer and Galaxy Tab aren't quite as nice to look at, and they have a glare.

This is where Android tablet makers really missed the boat. People wanted Android to come out and be the champion for people who couldn't spend the money on an iPad, but all of the quality ones still have the high price tag.

Disclaimer: Despite what I've said, I'm no Apple fanboy. I'm actually going to be in the market for a good quality Android tablet, not because of price, but because I really think the pros far outweigh the cons.

zekopeko
September 27th, 2011, 04:50 PM
*snip*
Every company on the planet would LOVE to be the only player in their market, Apple included. Apple don't sue for holistic purposes, they sue to improve their bottom line (which is perfectly sensible and logical).

I suggest you go and look up in a dictionary what holistic means. Apple isn't suing because of "holistic purposes" (whatever that means) but for specific cases of alleged infringement.



Neither I nor the post I quoted mentioned size.

forrestcupp said "I mean they were identical, except the dimensions were slightly different". Dimensions are a synonym for size.


The Tab is also not a smaller facsimile of the iPad.

Well at least one court disagrees with you.


They are different shapes.

True but the point is it doesn't appear legally relevant.


BTW, please avoid "intellectually dishonest" - it is subjective, unprovable, and it can be used anywhere by anyone without fear of rebuttal. Be more specific.

When you are using frivolous argument unrelated to the matter at hand I would say it is deserving.


Ok, look and feel is part of your "brand identity". Why should this so-called "brand identity" be protected?

Why not? Market differentiation is important and brand is a core part of that.


"Design is a core part of Apple's brand..." What does that even mean? What sort of infringement? "Brand infringement"? Why should they be able to?

I posted a link to a detailed analysis of one such lawsuit. I suggest you read it.


Yes, it is. That will be different for everyone, but for me: if it's not THE SAME, then there's no problem.

Thankfully the law doesn't require verbatim copying to protect other people's rights.


You've missed the point: I was saying that "slight dimensional differences" are just weasel words for "different shape".

And as I've stated before different shape in this case is the aspect ratio and that doesn't really matter in this case because if you don't have the iPad and Tab next to each other the average consumer wouldn't notice the difference.


This is why you really have to take your hat off to Apple. A company that can make people care about their "message" instead of the product they sell is truly astounding...

You entirely missed my point (are you even trying?). That philosophy gets distilled in the product in the form of software and hardware features. There is a reason Apple has extremely high retention rates amongst costumers.

zekopeko
September 27th, 2011, 04:52 PM
In other words, lemmingifying their user base.

I often wonder how Ubuntu users, who're so anti evil-and-closed-sourced-Microsoft, are so easily swayed by iShiny even though Apple is just as much, if not more, evil (and closed sourced.)

Because most Ubuntu users are human beings that don't care about that sort of thing.

zekopeko
September 27th, 2011, 05:07 PM
The only one here using fanboy rationale is you, trying to put logic and justification to Apples silly claims.

Silly me for trying to look at this objectively. What a horrible person I am. :lolflag:


I furthermore never stated that the Tab was released prior to the iPad, I said that the Tab follows the design of the rest of the Galaxy series and those designs were out way before the iPad was.

Some links would be nice. The first Galaxy device that I'm aware of is the Galaxy S phone (which is getting sued for looking too similar to one of the older iPhones). The first Galaxy tablet started selling months after the iPad started shipping.

So please to provide some reasoning as to how the Galaxy designs relate one to another because I find more similarities to Apple's products between various Galaxy device than between the device in the Galaxy family.


The devices look different, they have different dimensions and finishes as well. This is one of the most absurd lawsuits filed by another company on the grounds of protecting IP and everyone who isn't an Apple fanboy knows it.

Well the OP thinks there is some merit to it.

BTW because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are an Apple fanboy. It means they disagree with you.

I provided my arguments why I disagree you.

Remember that there is more to this lawsuits than the similarities between the iPad and Tab 10.1. Nobody is talking about the trade dress packaging issue where I think it is obvious Samsung copied Apple.


Admittedly, the iDevices started out by offering a superior product compared to the market alternatives (at a high price) but as the market caught up and surpassed them, they are no longer that attractive to anyone other than the Apple cult or the ones who do not see the alternatives in the market.

I seriously have to question if you are an anti-Apple fanboy at this point. Apple has the highest retention rate and customer satisfaction ratings amongst smarthpone customers. That means people like their Apple phones.


After a few months of the first quality android devices like HTC Hero (which I think was a great product and on par with iPhone) the only main sustainable argument Apple and their fanboys had were based on the App Store being superior to Android Market. But now, even that argument doesn't sustain itself.

Reality disagrees with you. The iPhone 4 (and 3GS) are still the highest selling phones even after 17 months.


There is now nothing Apple offers at a high price, that 10 others can't do the same or even better at half that price.

Last time I looked Galaxy Tab 10.1 was selling for the same price as the starter iPad2.

rg4w
September 27th, 2011, 05:32 PM
Both the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy tab look a lot like this Samsung product from 2006:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

Neither looks all that much like the abstract rectangular blob in the Community Design Apple was awarded by the EU which is the basis for their complaints:

http://www.osnews.com/img/25056/000181607-0001.png
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was _Bad

zekopeko
September 27th, 2011, 08:39 PM
Both the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy tab look a lot like this Samsung product from 2006:

Neither looks all that much like the abstract rectangular blob in the Community Design Apple was awarded by the EU which is the basis for their complaints:



Take note that the community design was awarded in 2004. The picture frame also looks completely different when you take in the back side which is usually, conveniently omitted when people post this picture.

Linky: http://i.imgur.com/vQQ8I.jpg

alexan
September 27th, 2011, 08:59 PM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg


/case closed (for everyone but apple fanboys)

KiwiNZ
September 27th, 2011, 09:06 PM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg


/case closed (for everyone but apple fanboys)

I think the Courts of Jurisdiction close the cases.

zekopeko
September 27th, 2011, 09:08 PM
/case closed (for everyone but apple fanboys)

Let me guess. You haven't even bothered to read the last 3 posts.

Jay Car
September 27th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Because most Ubuntu users are human beings that don't care about that sort of thing.

I am wondering how many of us Ubuntu-using-human-beings actually voted for you as our spokesperson.

don_quixote
September 27th, 2011, 09:42 PM
Ok, let's try that again...

How can ANYONE genuinely interested in Ubuntu, and therefore presumably interested in freedom software defend such trolling on Apple's part? rg4w's sensible post needs to be repeated: How can anyone defend having a product barred on basis of such an incredibly vague design 'patent'?

If Microsoft was pulling this kind of nonsense (and notably, they are not) everyone would scream. Slap an Apple logo, and suddenly this makes sense. Ok...

don_quixote
September 27th, 2011, 09:46 PM
Also linking the most important bit of the osnews article.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was _Bad

Because of how these Community Design courts are set up, the ruling by the German court now automatically applies to the entire EU. So what is going on here is that companies can simply select the most favourable court system - the German one, in this case - file their injunction request there, and no matter how obvious their Community Design is, no matter how much prior art there is, the court has to accept it as valid, and rule with this presumed validity in mind.

...

So, the filing process is broken, the court procedure is broken - and that isn't even all. The lack of proper review procedures leads to unbridled filing and wildgrowth of Community Designs. What you are about to see will make you laugh and cry at the same time.

---

Defending this is, in my view, defending the indefensible.

alexan
September 27th, 2011, 10:39 PM
I think the Courts of Jurisdiction close the cases.

Ok: we've found out the last off-stage detail.
Darth Vader was in the S.J.'s pool of lawyer ;)


Let me guess. You haven't even bothered to read the last 3 posts.

I have, but still my still maintain my position.

Basically everything that come out as lcd (or plasma tv) in the last 10 or so year can be split in three different designs model:
1. box shaped
2. rounded box shaped ("original" iPad)
3. creatively shaped



iPad have uncreative design... Apple mastering in make people believe the contrary, but the fact are math: every filler product (a product threw in the market with little to nothing design (aka: "minimalist") is rounded box shaped (ie: flat lcd/plasma tv, photo frames, lcd clock...)

KiwiNZ
September 27th, 2011, 10:43 PM
Ok: we've found out the last off-stage detail.
Darth Vader was in the S.J.'s pool of lawyer ;)



No, I dislike Patent litigation as much as I dislike IP copying.

The Force is my only guide ;)

Mikeb85
September 28th, 2011, 12:08 AM
The fact that Apple was awarded a patent on a rounded rectangle shape is beyond insane... Never mind this whole judicial process. Oh well, karma will come back to get Apple, their products are already delayed because of the lawsuit with Samsung, and their 'new' products are not nearly as innovative as what Samsung has coming soon... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8790189/Flexible-Samsung-phone-to-be-issued-in-2012.html

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 12:16 AM
Ok, let's try that again...

How can ANYONE genuinely interested in Ubuntu, and therefore presumably interested in freedom software defend such trolling on Apple's part?

Quite a logical leap you did there. Hardware design is, oh so relevant to Free software. :lolflag:


rg4w's sensible post needs to be repeated: How can anyone defend having a product barred on basis of such an incredibly vague design 'patent'?

I agree that community design is pretty vague and the design probably shouldn't have been granted but there is far more to this lawsuits then vague design patents.


If Microsoft was pulling this kind of nonsense (and notably, they are not) everyone would scream. Slap an Apple logo, and suddenly this makes sense. Ok...

I don't care if it is Apple or Microsoft or Google. Copying products isn't OK in my book and Samsung has shown a pattern of such behavior.

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 12:19 AM
I have, but still my still maintain my position.

Basically everything that come out as lcd (or plasma tv) in the last 10 or so year can be split in three different designs model:
1. box shaped
2. rounded box shaped ("original" iPad)
3. creatively shaped

iPad have uncreative design... Apple mastering in make people believe the contrary, but the fact are math: every filler product (a product threw in the market with little to nothing design (aka: "minimalist") is rounded box shaped (ie: flat lcd/plasma tv, photo frames, lcd clock...)

Please. Looking at TVs you can clearly see the design difference between manufactures. The same applies to laptops, monitors and all kinds of computers. Going by your vague standard cars shouldn't have any design protections because they are boxes with wheels.

don_quixote
September 28th, 2011, 04:20 AM
Quite a logical leap you did there. Hardware design is, oh so relevant to Free software. :lolflag:
Apple's software tactics are indistinguishable. They lock in users, disallow control, and like to patent whatever they can. So, there is no leap here at all.



I agree that community design is pretty vague and the design probably shouldn't have been granted but there is far more to this lawsuits then vague design patents.

From everything I've been reading, that seems to be the reason for the injunction; it's not an accident Apple cannot pull this trick here in North America.



I don't care if it is Apple or Microsoft or Google. Copying products isn't OK in my book and Samsung has shown a pattern of such behavior.

How many ways is there to make a tablet? How many variables are there? Screen size, aspect ratio, rounded edges, I mean, what? Seriously, we're not talking about replicating a Michelangelo here. There is only a select number of ways which are functional, and which make sense.

thatguruguy
September 28th, 2011, 04:23 AM
I agree that community design is pretty vague and the design probably shouldn't have been granted but there is far more to this lawsuits then vague design patents.


What, exactly?

don_quixote
September 28th, 2011, 04:26 AM
Please. Looking at TVs you can clearly see the design difference between manufactures. The same applies to laptops, monitors and all kinds of computers. Going by your vague standard cars shouldn't have any design protections because they are boxes with wheels.

Tablets, by their nature, are very minimalistic devices. Not a lot of space to play with, so overall design is going to not vary a whole lot. Heck, even laptops have more space to play around with, yet many do look similar indeed!

And cars are a heck of a lot more complicated than a tablet to design. Many more variables to play around with, so it stands to reason that there are more design differences. And yet still, some cars look quite similar!

PhillyPhil
September 28th, 2011, 07:57 AM
I suggest you go and look up in a dictionary what holistic means. Apple isn't suing because of "holistic purposes" (whatever that means) but for specific cases of alleged infringement.
But I don't care what it means...Apple sue for their bottom line (sensibly).


forrestcupp said "I mean they were identical, except the dimensions were slightly different". Dimensions are a synonym for size.
If it were a single dimension that would be true. With multiple dimensions it's shape.



Well at least one court disagrees with you.
I haven't seen a court stating that the Tab is a smaller facsimile of the iPad.



True but the point is it doesn't appear legally relevant.
At least one court disagrees with you.


When you are using frivolous argument unrelated to the matter at hand I would say it is deserving.

Labeling an argument 'frivolous' is also subjective and so completely meaningless in any logical discussion.


Why not? Market differentiation is important and brand is a core part of that.
I posted a link to a detailed analysis of one such lawsuit. I suggest you read it.
I suggest you stop giving common terms your own personal definitions.
'Brand' for example, and 'design', 'core part'.
You're using them to come up with some lovely little phrases that don't actually mean anything concrete.


Thankfully the law doesn't require verbatim copying to protect other people's rights.
If I was unaware of that I wouldn't have made that statement, would I?
I made it quite clear I was giving a personal opinion.


And as I've stated before different shape in this case is the aspect ratio and that doesn't really matter in this case because if you don't have the iPad and Tab next to each other the average consumer wouldn't notice the difference.
Thank goodness you're around to clear that up for everyone! ;)
Hear that judges? Shape doesn't really matter.


You entirely missed my point (are you even trying?). That philosophy gets distilled in the product in the form of software and hardware features. There is a reason Apple has extremely high retention rates amongst costumers.
(No, I wasn't...)
You're still providing more of the same by talking about their "philosophy"...

KiwiNZ
September 28th, 2011, 08:22 AM
Samsung make very good products, they did not need to copy.They could have easily come up with their own design, Acer did, Asus did and Sony did to name a few.

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 01:53 PM
Apple's software tactics are indistinguishable. They lock in users, disallow control, and like to patent whatever they can. So, there is no leap here at all.

This is irrelevant when discussing physical design. And just because I think that FOSS is a good ideal it doesn't mean I think other approaches aren't also legitimate.


From everything I've been reading, that seems to be the reason for the injunction; it's not an accident Apple cannot pull this trick here in North America.

It was in Germany. In Netherlands the community design was deemed invalid but an injunction was set to take effect because of Samsung infringing on another patent.

There is also a few lawsuits in the US that Apple is pursuing but the injunction standards are different AFAIK so it is taking some time.


How many ways is there to make a tablet? How many variables are there? Screen size, aspect ratio, rounded edges, I mean, what? Seriously, we're not talking about replicating a Michelangelo here. There is only a select number of ways which are functional, and which make sense.

The German judge thought other tablets on the market are sufficiently different while the Tab wasn't. The Transformer for example looks distinct IMO. As does the Nook and other tablets.

From my perspective it isn't only about how the tablet looks but all the surrounding things such as, but not limited to:

-packaging of the Tab which is IMO a copy of Apple's
-adding features that don't exist in stock Android that are directly copying iOS features
-marketing campaign on some of the Galaxy products which is extremely similar

Taken individually they don't appear that relevant but taken as a whole it paints a completely different picture. From where I'm standing it look to me like Samsung tried to ride on the wave of Apple's success.

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 01:56 PM
What, exactly?

I posted one link to an in depth analysis on the California case in a previous post. There are 20+ Apple v Samsung lawsuit going around the world and I haven't looked at each one.

Also, don't you have some legal expertise and couldn't you look it up (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=11285010#post11285010) or was that a typo?

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 01:59 PM
Tablets, by their nature, are very minimalistic devices. Not a lot of space to play with, so overall design is going to not vary a whole lot. Heck, even laptops have more space to play around with, yet many do look similar indeed!

True but that only means the standard of design protection should be lowered since there isn't that much space to differentiate. It doesn't mean there isn't space to do that. There are other tablets that are pretty distinct considering the general tablet design.


And cars are a heck of a lot more complicated than a tablet to design. Many more variables to play around with, so it stands to reason that there are more design differences. And yet still, some cars look quite similar!

True but cars still have distinctive styles. I doubt that your average person couldn't tell a difference between a BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Chrysler or GM.

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 02:19 PM
But I don't care what it means...Apple sue for their bottom line (sensibly).
Then don't use word you don't understand.


If it were a single dimension that would be true. With multiple dimensions it's shape.
Actually a single dimension would be length. 2+ dimensions can be shapes.


I haven't seen a court stating that the Tab is a smaller facsimile of the iPad.
Considering that the injunction was requested based on Apple's claims of Samsung "slavishly copying" Apple I would say it was implied indirectly.


At least one court disagrees with you.
I don't remember that a court saying that size is relevant in this case. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could read it?


Labeling an argument 'frivolous' is also subjective and so completely meaningless in any logical discussion.
Except this whole debate is about a subjective claim, design.


I suggest you stop giving common terms your own personal definitions.
'Brand' for example, and 'design', 'core part'.
You're using them to come up with some lovely little phrases that don't actually mean anything concrete.
The problem is that sometimes it is very hard to put in exact words something without writing whole books. Perhaps you will find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=t0fe800C2CU) more to the point.

Design is usually a core part of the brand. The best example I can give you is the legendary Coca-Cola bottle which Coca-Cola heavily incorporated in their brand.


If I was unaware of that I wouldn't have made that statement, would I?
I made it quite clear I was giving a personal opinion.
Sorry I missed that. We will just have to disagree because I find your opinion too narrow in this part.


Thank goodness you're around to clear that up for everyone! ;)
Hear that judges? Shape doesn't really matter.
It's like every single thing I said about that went over your head. Of course shape (in this case predominately being aspect ratio of the Tab) could matter but it is not an important part in this case.


(No, I wasn't...)
You're still providing more of the same by talking about their "philosophy"...
Part of their philosophy is design and ease of use. Of course this is down to each person's opinion but most Apple users appreciate that. There is a reason for Apple's recent success. I suggest you look into it.

fontis
September 28th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Design is usually a core part of the brand. The best example I can give you is the legendary Coca-Cola bottle which Coca-Cola heavily incorporated in their brand.



With that logic, no other beverage should be allowed to be sold in a glass bottle, since it so clearly is a part of the Coke Cola brand. lol.

Also, to a person who can tell the difference due to knowledge, it's easy to see how the ipad and the Tab are different products. However, the untrained eye might make the mistake and that's the longshot they are going for.

Same applies for cars. A person who's never seen a car before will think that all cars look alike. So the logic behind that argument is flawed. It comes down to subjectivity and in this case it's absolutely preposterous that they can make that claim.

Btw, afaik Apple even photoshopped some of the evidence photos so the Tab would look a lot like the iPad size wise. Just goes to say how lol this matter is.

zekopeko
September 28th, 2011, 05:04 PM
With that logic, no other beverage should be allowed to be sold in a glass bottle, since it so clearly is a part of the Coke Cola brand. lol.
Please stop trying to make this a discussion low on intelligent discourse and arguments. Your argument is flawed because you are overgeneralizing. In the above example other companies could make a bottle but not one that is either identical to the Coca-Cola one or so similar that an average person could mistake it for one.


Also, to a person who can tell the difference due to knowledge, it's easy to see how the ipad and the Tab are different products. However, the untrained eye might make the mistake and that's the longshot they are going for.
Thank you for refuting yourself by making the above, dare I say, ridiculous statement. If your average consumer has to be trained to notice the difference than you just single-handedly made the case for Apple.


Same applies for cars. A person who's never seen a car before will think that all cars look alike. So the logic behind that argument is flawed.
I have no idea how you manage to make yourself believe you have a valid argument. If a person saw a car for the first time in their life they could easily conclude, using their experience in other matters, that a different design exists or could exist.


It comes down to subjectivity and in this case it's absolutely preposterous that they can make that claim.
Just because a matter might be subjective doesn't mean it can't be assessed as objectively as possible. By your standard there isn't such a thing as a rip-off unless it is a 1:1 copy of it. General human experience disagrees with you.


Btw, afaik Apple even photoshopped some of the evidence photos so the Tab would look a lot like the iPad size wise. Just goes to say how lol this matter is.
The only picture in the original claim that was 'shopped to a degree was the one using promotional photos from both Apple and Samsung. But hey lets ignore the 20 something actual photos of both devices. Or the fact that the judge had both devices in his/her's hands.

Jesus_Valdez
September 28th, 2011, 05:06 PM
With that logic, no other beverage should be allowed to be sold in a glass bottle, since it so clearly is a part of the Coke Cola brand. lol.

.

You really need to understand the first thing about brand, industrial property, trade marks and the like before arguing about it, it would do you and the rest of the forum some good.

fontis
September 28th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Thank you for refuting yourself by making the above, dare I say, ridiculous statement. If your average consumer has to be trained to notice the difference than you just single-handedly made the case for Apple.


I have no idea how you manage to make yourself believe you have a valid argument. If a person saw a car for the first time in their life they could easily conclude, using their experience in other matters, that a different design exists or could exist.



Please.
Unless there is a blatant difference in a product, say comparing the 1980's cellphones to Nokia 8150, people who are not familiar with the devices will not be able to tell the difference.
My mom e.g. can't tell the difference between Windows, Linux or OS X for that matter. Does that mean that MS should sue Linux who sues OS X?

I can clearly tell a difference because I know they are all different products. But to the untrained eye it's not as easy. I've held both devices in my hands and seen them from a far as well and I have never, ever, confused one with the other.

This ruling is ridiculous for many reasons, and there is a very particular reason as to why Apple choose that court to file this complaint at and not other places. The same lawsuit in Sweden or any other Scandinavian country would be laughed at and dismissed. Not necessarily because the laws there are different per se but rather because the judges would rule based on facts.

I'm glad I don't live in Germany anyway, where GTA and CoD are censored (lol).

rg4w
September 28th, 2011, 06:56 PM
Take note that the community design was awarded in 2004.
Here's an example of prior art that looks even more like the actual iPad - and it's from 1887:

http://i51.tinypic.com/349b806.jpg


I agree that community design is pretty vague and the design probably shouldn't have been granted..
I think we're in complete agreement on that.

alexan
September 28th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Tablets, by their nature, are very minimalistic devices. Not a lot of space to play with, so overall design is going to not vary a whole lot. Heck, even laptops have more space to play around with, yet many do look similar indeed!
In addition to this, is also to note that future hardware design is pretty easily predictable: eventually frame will competently being hidden in order to have full flat surface screen (while border will still rounded).

In theory I could even patent a ****** tablet device with those specs (a barley working prototype of tablet with no frame)... it's no matter if it would work decently since the only propouse is to use its to patent troll every other company in future.
Which would find them forced to add stupid frames around their devices only to avoid me having them to patent troll them.

forrestcupp
September 28th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Does that mean that MS should sue Linux who sues OS X?No, but they all do anyway.


I've held both devices in my hands and seen them from a far as well and I have never, ever, confused one with the other.You're being pretty stubborn about this. I'm the OP who started all of this, and I never said I can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference because I know that most Android tablets have a wider format in landscape mode than the iPad does. But if I was unfamiliar with that fact and I saw them both at different times, it would be easy to get them confused if they weren't turned on.

I don't know why you are so unwilling to admit that the Galaxy Tab looks a lot like the black iPad. Are you a part of the design team, or something? Yes, there are some minor differences, but you're deluded if you really can't see the major similarities because of the minor differences. The truth is that the black Galaxy Tab looks more like the black iPad than any other Android device. There's not a whole lot you could do to make it look more like an iPad from the front.

Does that mean that they should be banned and shut down? Not in my opinion. For years, the LTD catalog has sold a blatant iPod Touch knock-off, and nobody ever said a thing about that. Your fierce arguments against the Galaxy Tab looking like the iPad almost make it seem like you believe that a product that looks like the iPad should be banned.

VanR
September 29th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Some things just look the way they do because it is functional for it to be that way. Like the Michelins on my Volvo are round and black and have tread just like the Coopers on my wife's Volvo.

ninjaaron
September 29th, 2011, 01:07 AM
In theory I could even patent a any tablet device with those specs (a barley working prototype of tablet with no frame)... it's no matter if it would work decently since the only propouse is to use its to patent troll every other company in future.
Which would find them forced to add stupid frames around their devices only to avoid me having them to patent troll them.

Though I think the lawsuit is stupid, and some companies do exactly what you are describing, this is clearly not what Apple is doing. They make excellent products with industry-leading design. There is little argument that the iPad is a best-in-class device.

I don't want this to be confused with fanboidom. It is very likely that I will never buy another Apple product on ideological grounds, but it is still obvious that they design superiour producs to anyone else on the market.

And it will only cost you your soul.:p

PhillyPhil
September 29th, 2011, 09:35 AM
Then don't use word you don't understand.
But I do understand it. I just don't care if I use it correctly.
Not sure why you're fixated on this word. The point is Apple sues for their bottom line.


Actually a single dimension would be length. 2+ dimensions can be shapes.
You're just paraphrasing me now.
As for 'can be', it always is except in the unlikely cases where all ratios stay identical.


Considering that the injunction was requested based on Apple's claims of Samsung "slavishly copying" Apple I would say it was implied indirectly.
Great to have you telling us the real meaning behind judges' statements.


I don't remember that a court saying that size is relevant in this case. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could read it?
No problem, just as soon as you provide the link where a court calls the Tab a smaller facsimile of the iPad.


Except this whole debate is about a subjective claim, design.
So what. Subjective claims about arguments given are worthless.


The problem is that sometimes it is very hard to put in exact words something without writing whole books. Perhaps you will find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=t0fe800C2CU) more to the point.

Design is usually a core part of the brand. The best example I can give you is the legendary Coca-Cola bottle which Coca-Cola heavily incorporated in their brand.
You're still doing it. 'Design' has no clear meaning here. 'Brand' is still undefined. etc...


Sorry I missed that. We will just have to disagree because I find your opinion too narrow in this part.
Of course we disagree. I find your opinion far too permissive.


It's like every single thing I said about that went over your head. Of course shape (in this case predominately being aspect ratio of the Tab) could matter but it is not an important part in this case.
'Predominantly' is your opinion. 'Not important' is your opinion.
I suspect if the Tab *was* the same shape as the iPad Samsung's legal position now would be considerably worse than it is, so I'm guessing shape is extremely important.


Part of their philosophy is design and ease of use. Of course this is down to each person's opinion but most Apple users appreciate that. There is a reason for Apple's recent success. I suggest you look into it.
By 'design' do you perhaps mean 'appearance"/"size+shape+colour'? 'Design' would cover absolutely everything.
You're still doing it :p
- using words like philosophy and message to describe a couple of basic things that would make the top 5 bullet points by any student of Product Design 101.
I have no problem with people seeing deeper meaning where there isn't any, I just think it's interesting that Apple is able to induce this.

alexan
September 29th, 2011, 01:08 PM
but it is still obvious that they design superiour producs to anyone else on the market.

If you're not a fanboy, what's supposed to say instead an Apple fanboy on Apple desing?

Apple is no better than many hardware/software (and both combined) company.

Apple has advantage towards other thanks to wider (free) media coverage.

It's like facebook: people don't go on facebook for superior quality of the product or reliability (privacy and security concern ), people go on facebook because everyone else is doing it.




to avoid derail of the thread: it is not true that apple first come tablet market with minimalist design... but it's true that a lot of people that buy things only for fashion did ear about apple on this first.

forrestcupp
September 29th, 2011, 02:34 PM
to avoid derail of the thread: it is not true that apple first come tablet market with minimalist design... but it's true that a lot of people that buy things only for fashion did ear about apple on this first.

Apple was far from being the first to come out with a tablet, but they were the first to do it right. Up until the iPad, we had a bunch of tablets with resistive screens running modified versions of regular desktop OSs. That's why nobody bought them until the iPad came out.

fontis
September 29th, 2011, 04:25 PM
Apple was far from being the first to come out with a tablet, but they were the first to do it right. Up until the iPad, we had a bunch of tablets with resistive screens running modified versions of regular desktop OSs. That's why nobody bought them until the iPad came out.

Actually, I dare to say that the reason why was because the other companies lacked the technology of having a screen that large to be so good. The iPhone totally changed the playing field and worked (still does) as the product to which you want to surpass in usability. I think when HTC Hero came out the touch advantage was lost and from that point on it was only a matter of time before that technology was adopted to other products.

Same goes for Samsung. I mean Samsung's had touch phones way before iPhone was released but it wasn't as good as it got until the Wave / Galaxy series. And for them, from that point on it was just a matter of implementing it into the rest of their products.

I think the only manufacturer still lagging behind is probably Nokia, who completely burned themselves twice, first by losing the opportunity to produce the iPhone, and then when they kept insisting on their bad resistive screens on their symbian devices.

ninjaaron
September 29th, 2011, 05:05 PM
If you're not a fanboy, what's supposed to say instead an Apple fanboy on Apple desing?

Apple is no better than many hardware/software (and both combined) company.

Yes they are better at design than many other software and hardware companies. There hasn't been a single platform they've touched where they haven't set the standard for design both in hardware and software.

There are some aspects of kernel design, such as memory management, where they lag behind Linux. They continually push the boundries in terms of hardware design, both in looks and concepts. Their UIs are consistently the most coherent available. I personally prefer some of the UI shells available on Linux, such as Gnome Shell, Unity, and Scrotwm, but neither Windows nor any Linux DE provides as useful or as tightly integrated of a user toolset as OSX.

However, I'm not going to do the neccesary googling to back up these claims, so you may lable me as "an Apple fanboy of Apple desing"[sic.] if you wish.

Luckily, unlike you, industry leaders in proprietary software, FOSS, and hardware design do realize that Apple sets a bar to which others would be wise to aspire, and their best ideas are usually quickly copied.

I'm not saying that Apple is the greatest source of innovation in the industry or we should do everything like them (they are not, and we should not), but they are masters of implementation. Only a fool refuses to acknowledge excellence among his rivals.

rg4w
September 29th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Some things just look the way they do because it is functional for it to be that way.
^ this

Apple's attacks on Samsung are based on design patents, not utility patents. Ironically, when it comes to actual utility Samsung's countersuit against Apple, based entirely on utility patents, may get some traction. But with Apple's design patents, it remains to be seen how they'll fair when tested in court, whether their obvious utility eventually causes their status as a design patent to be nixed.

It would be fun to watch to proceedings, but sadly for us popcorn lovers it's unlikely this will ever go to court. Apple wants some of Samsung's patents, and Samsung wants to continue selling utilitarian devices, so they'll settle this out of court within months. The only question is who will pay more to whom; remember that when Apple sued HTC they wound up paying more. Sometimes being the aggressor does no assure advantage.

KiwiNZ
September 29th, 2011, 07:23 PM
A rotating discussion here will prove nothing and decide less. Courts will decide and market forces confirm.

zekopeko
September 29th, 2011, 11:48 PM
^ this

Apple's attacks on Samsung are based on design patents, not utility patents.

This isn't true. Apple asserted a number of utility patents against Samsung in US, Netherlands and Australia. There are probably more.


Ironically, when it comes to actual utility Samsung's countersuit against Apple, based entirely on utility patents, may get some traction.

I doubt it. Samsung is trying to use 3G patents against Apple which Apple is willing to license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms . The problem is that Samsung wants an unfairly large sum of money from them.

Samsung will be lucky if they don't get slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit because they abused their monopolistic position with asserting those patents on an industry standard in such a way.


But with Apple's design patents, it remains to be seen how they'll fair when tested in court, whether their obvious utility eventually causes their status as a design patent to be nixed.

In Germany the judge limited the scope of the design patent and still granted an injunction against Samsung. If you read the decision the judge even points to 3-4 tablets that do not infringe on Apple's design.


It would be fun to watch to proceedings, but sadly for us popcorn lovers it's unlikely this will ever go to court. Apple wants some of Samsung's patents, and Samsung wants to continue selling utilitarian devices, so they'll settle this out of court within months. The only question is who will pay more to whom; remember that when Apple sued HTC they wound up paying more. Sometimes being the aggressor does no assure advantage.

Apple wants Samsung to not copy their products. Both in design and functionality. If Apple simply wanted to cross-license they would have done so long ago behind closed doors.

alexan
September 30th, 2011, 02:35 PM
Apple was far from being the first to come out with a tablet, but they were the first to do it right. Up until the iPad, we had a bunch of tablets with resistive screens running modified versions of regular desktop OSs. That's why nobody bought them until the iPad came out.
This looks credible to you? To me looks like it's more that iPad get more free advertisement by popular media rather anything else.


But let's examine things further, among these two option which one is more credible to you.

1. After the astonishing success of the smart-phones it was expected to explode tablet market as well. But just slightly before of tablet market boom the medias obsessively reported news as "ipad", "ipad", "ipad"... and sometime using this word as synonym, if not totally substitutive, of "tablet pc".

2. If Apple didn't come for its own "new" mobile OS (which was basically the old/obsolete iPod, iPad os) the tablet market would had never bloomed.

It's more credible 1 or 2?


@ninjaaron: You didn't say that Apple design's looks nice to you. You sentenced that everyone is doing it worse.
"standard for design both in hardware and software"
A standard, followed by who? Samsung? Apple is suing them, as well many other are suing Apple.
Apple "use" concept like "touch screen" and that's no copy... while they use a rounded box shape it does mean that everyone else is copying Apple?

"Their UIs are consistently the most coherent available."
"UI" as "User Interface"?
Coherent as "copy&paste", "browse files" or "send file through bluetooth"? User is supposed to use the interface... not sacrifice usability for fashion.
"provides as useful or as tightly integrated of a user toolset as OSX."
See above.

I am not labeling you as Apple fanboy... I am labeling your reasons as Apple-fanboy-kind. It may be my own limit, but i can't see in what you wrote some actual proof... just some wishful appreciation, sorry.. but it is how it looks like (to me at the least)

rg4w
September 30th, 2011, 03:09 PM
This isn't true. Apple asserted a number of utility patents against Samsung in US, Netherlands and Australia. There are probably more.
True, the scope of Apple's lawsuits is indeed staggering, and in the Dutch court - where all design patents were dismissed, the only surviving claim was a utility patent on scrolling. But the OP was about the design patents, so I was addressing those.


I doubt it. Samsung is trying to use 3G patents against Apple which Apple is willing to license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms . The problem is that Samsung wants an unfairly large sum of money from them.
If Apple has a receipt of payment for those FRAND licenses then of course Samsung is just being silly. But if Apple willfully avoided making payments, I'm not a position to know how much they'll pay but I would guess it'll be more than if they had made those payments in a more timely and forthright manner.

forrestcupp
September 30th, 2011, 04:59 PM
This looks credible to you? To me looks like it's more that iPad get more free advertisement by popular media rather anything else.


But let's examine things further, among these two option which one is more credible to you.

1. After the astonishing success of the smart-phones it was expected to explode tablet market as well. But just slightly before of tablet market boom the medias obsessively reported news as "ipad", "ipad", "ipad"... and sometime using this word as synonym, if not totally substitutive, of "tablet pc".

2. If Apple didn't come for its own "new" mobile OS (which was basically the old/obsolete iPod, iPad os) the tablet market would had never bloomed.

It's more credible 1 or 2?
Yes. I stand by what I said. We're not talking about the result of how things have evolved today; we're talking about how things were when the iPad came out. I lived through the history of tablets because I was interested in them even back when they were running the normal Windows desktop environment and you used a stylus. In my opinion, iOS is not as functional on a tablet as Android is right now, but they were the first to have a UI on a tablet that made sense for that type of device.

Because the iPad was the first to have a UI, and a good screen, that actually put tablets in a separate class that made sense for there to even be that class, it succeeded. It took Android tablet makers a long time to come out with anything that rivaled the iPad.

Before the iPad, there were tablets made by large companies that advertise. The reason they never took off is because they were uninteresting, and they didn't have a viable purpose. If your #1 solution were true, then Macs would have the largest market share, too.

fontis
October 2nd, 2011, 10:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFmHxz5n8qs#!

This video is a mockup made with 98% certainty on how iPhone5 is gonna look like when shown next week.

It has a 4" display. Maybe samsung should sue them for copying SGS and SGS 2? :D

leclerc65
November 30th, 2011, 02:43 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-apple-samsung-australia-idUSTRE7AT05R20111130

richoliver
December 13th, 2011, 11:04 AM
Any court that will listen to it has an Apple lawsuit filed against another tech company on the docket. Judges in Australia and Germany recently handed Apple legal defeats. Apple has lost this round of battles.

Source: http://www.appisaurus.com/1405-apple-injunction/ (http://www.appisaurus.com/1405-apple-injunction/)

Better luck next suitcase Apple..