# Apple stops Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 distribution in European Union



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 9, 2011)

Wow, Apple are going to get a shit storm of flack for this if this goes ahead!



> Reports are coming in that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction for the entire European Union (excluding Netherlands) that will halt distribution of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. This comes on the heels of a postponed launch of the device in Australia due to a lawsuit with Apple.
> 
> The decision by the Regional Court of Dusseldorf in Germany to block sales of the device comes after a judge sided with Apple on claims that Galaxy Tab infringed on patents related to the iPad 2. While Samsung can appeal the court’s decision sometime in the next month, the Telegraph’s Shane Richmond is quick to point out it would be heard by the same judge. Apple is also said to have a separate lawsuit filed in the Netherlands as well.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 9, 2011)

Make perfect business sense if the reports of Europe being the key battleground for any company wanting to beat the iPad2 but yeah this could cause Apple some bad blood...


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Make perfect business sense if the reports of Europe being the key battleground for any company wanting to beat the iPad2 but yeah this could cause Apple some bad blood...


It just sucks whoever is doing the blocking.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2011)

FFS: this injunction relates only to the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple alleges “blatantly imitate the appearance of Apple’s products to capitalize on Apple’s success”.

Yeah. In that it's a tablet that is tablet shaped. Except it's not even the same shape.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

Gets nastier too:


> Following this morning's news about Apple winning a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe, Samsung has responded by saying that not only did the company never hear about the filing in the first place, but that it also never had the chance to present its side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TitanSound (Aug 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Gets nastier too:



How the hell could a judge let that through?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

TitanSound said:


> How the hell could a judge let that through?


iCash in his iBackPocket?


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

But it does look like an iPad. It may not be an exact copy of an iPad, but it's pretty bloody similar... Depends what, specifically, the case hinges on - e.g whether it's just that version with the white back etc, but it's perfectly reasonable for a company to defend their designs. You may not think it's good for consumers, but then neither is a market where shamelessly ripping off another company's designs is acceptable. HTC, Asus etc all manage to design products that don't look like an iPad, but for some reason Samsung have decided to try lining the Galaxy up directly against the iPad (price point, spec, external look, OS look etc) - of course Apple are going to try and fight it.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

Cid said:


> But it does look like an iPad. I


How else might a tablet look?

Like this design perhaps?






The above design was launched months before the iPad was even announced.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

Yes, like that design - the interface is windows and clearly completely different, the silver border is different (and pretty ugly), edges seem to be curved, spec and price point completely different (although that may not be relevant) etc. Similar design, don't get me wrong, but looks more like a large iPhone than an iPad. Which, considering the iPhone came out 3 years earlier, might be why they didn't pursue it.

Also obviously depends when patents are filed, designs registered etc - I can't imagine Apple didn't know what their product looked like 6 months before release.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

Samsung have retracted (or, to put it more accurately, have said they can't verify the Reuters report of their statement) according to this article. They're now saying:



> Samsung is disappointed with the court's decision and we intend to act immediately to defend our intellectual property rights through the ongoing legal proceedings in Germany and will continue to actively defend these rights throughout the world," Samsung said.
> "We will take all necessary measures to ensure Samsung's innovative mobile communications devices are available to customers in Europe and around the world."



So it's unclear whether they were told about the case or not.


----------



## elbows (Aug 10, 2011)

Tip for corporations: If there is a danger that you will be accused of copying rivals too much and may suffer legal woes as a result, do a few simple things to differentiate. For a start, don't make your packaging too similar


----------



## elbows (Aug 10, 2011)

Although I have to admit the 10.1 box is a bit different, even so it was still risky to make the packaging so white.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2011)

A white box is a trademark infringement? Fuck off!


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

Not really sure how you're supposed to make cardboard packaging for rectangular objects look much different from each other, or why anyone might think that Apple have some sort of prior ownership over white boxes.

The point is: would any normal person go into a store to buy an iPhone/iPad but then get home to discover that - whoops! - they'd accidentally bought a Samsung product instead?


----------



## elbows (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A white box is a trademark infringement? Fuck off!



Im not saying that. Im saying that if there is a danger that several features of your product may cause potential legal woes, its a good idea to go out of your way to make other aspects of the product dissimilar. The law can be an ass, especially in the early stages or proceedings, and you don't want to give your opponent any ammunition, even if it seems like comedy ammunition to sane humans.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A white box is a trademark infringement? Fuck off!



No, but - and I'm not sure why people aren't getting this despite the fact we've been discussing Apple's litigiousness for ages now - this is not about one thing, it is about a combination. If Samsung used white packaging, rounded edges or a similar looking interface alone there probably wouldn't be an issue (possibly on the interface), it's the fact that the Galaxy has rounded corners, a similar interface, a similar combination of colours, similar layout on the back (in the pic ed posted anyway), similar packaging _in combination_ that is key here. Even then it might not be a problem if they weren't aiming it at precisely the same price bracket as the iPad with a similar spec. These are not unjustified bits of litigation, Samsung is basically directly attacking Apple's niche and Apple is understandably fighting its corner. That is just a feature of capitalism of course, but the way Samsung have done it is profoundly dishonest (if the patent infringements turn out to be correct of course), they are not creating a product that pushes Apple out through innovation, they are creating a product that does it through imitation.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Not really sure how you're supposed to make cardboard packaging for rectangular objects look much different from each other, or why anyone might think that Apple have some sort of prior ownership over white boxes.



Um... I'm pretty sure you will have bought a fair amount of music in your time, do all the album covers look the same?



> The point is: would any normal person go into a store to buy an iPhone/iPad but then get home to discover that - whoops! - they'd accidentally bought a Samsung product instead?



That I agree with.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

Cid said:


> If Samsung used white packaging, rounded edges or a similar looking interface alone there probably wouldn't be an issue (possibly on the interface), it's the fact that the Galaxy has rounded corners, a similar interface, a similar combination of colours, similar layout on the back (in the pic ed posted anyway), similar packaging _in combination_ that is key here.


Here's how the back of the Samsung 10.1 looks:





http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/reviews/369229/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1/167338

And this is the iPad2:





You'd have to have something wrong with your noggin to go into a store and mistake the two.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

I did say in the pic you posted.

We don't know if they're arguing from the mistaken identity side of things this time anyway.


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

It's amazing how many experts on IP law there are on this thread. Hope my clients don't find out about this free source of advice.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 10, 2011)

It's not about identical looks it's about brand association 'this looks a lot like that so must be as good.' etc...not hard to understand really.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2011)

Cid said:


> Um... I'm pretty sure you will have bought a fair amount of music in your time, do all the album covers look the same?


The packaging is near identical yes. The same size cardboard outer sleeve, with a paper inner sleeve holding a 12" round record with a circular paper sticker in the centre and a hole in the middle. Information is almost always printers on the front and back with a summary on the spine. Some have near identical colour schemes too.



Kid_Eternity said:


> It's not about identical looks it's about brand association 'this looks a lot like that so must be as good.' etc...not hard to understand really.


Again, so do you think people are likely to mistake Samsung's products for Apple's and buy the wrong one?


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

editor said:


> The above design was launched months before the iPad was even announced.



Irrelevant.



Cid said:


> Also obviously depends when patents are filed, designs registered etc - I can't imagine Apple didn't know what their product looked like 6 months before release.



Correct. I've pointed this out a couple of times but the message doesn't seem to be getting through.

The key date here is the priority date of the Apple EU registered design, which is 17 March 2004.  Somewhat earlier than the dates quoted in the ZDNet article linked to above.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

editor said:


> The packaging is near identical yes. The same size cardboard outer sleeve, with a paper inner sleeve holding a 12" round record with a circular paper sticker in the centre and a hole in the middle. Information is almost always printers on the front and back with a summary on the spine. Some have near identical colour schemes too.



The distinctive part of an album cover is the sleeve design though, I don't imagine Apple would focus on the size of the box (although the point in a trade dress infringement is that it's _everything_ visible, so it would be taken into account - we don't know if this is trade dress though). The point here is that the Apple design would be something like 'view of front of product displaying default home menu of the product set against a white background on front of packaging, view of rear of product on white backdrop on rear of packaging, further branding on sides centred in silver and black text'. The Samsung would be 'view of front of product displaying default home menu of the product set against a white background with text in silver on front of packaging, view of rear of product on white backdrop on rear of packaging, further branding on sides centred in orange text'. The packaging for the new product is more distinctive (giving you a nice demonstration of how there is more than one way to box a tablet), but again we don't know if this is the basis for their argument.




> Again, so do you think people are likely to mistake Samsung's products for Apple's and buy the wrong one?



Again, no, but we don't know what basis Apple are working on this time. Last time I checked Germany is not a US state, so it's unlikely they'll be using US patent laws...


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A white box is a trademark infringement? Fuck off!



This case is not about trade mark infringement.  They are arguing that the shape and configuration is similar.


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Not really sure how you're supposed to make cardboard packaging for rectangular objects look much different from each other, or why anyone might think that Apple have some sort of prior ownership over white boxes.
> 
> The point is: would any normal person go into a store to buy an iPhone/iPad but then get home to discover that - whoops! - they'd accidentally bought a Samsung product instead?



Irrelevant to this case.


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's not about identical looks it's about brand association 'this looks a lot like that so must be as good.' etc...not hard to understand really.



No it's not, it's about whether the shape and configuration of the article is similar.


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

Incidentally, my personal opinion is that Apple are likely to lose.


----------



## Winot (Aug 10, 2011)

(I can give you chapter and verse on the Community Design Regulation if you want but I'd imagine you have better things to do).


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

Why would be discussing this if that were the case?


----------



## c01642 (Aug 10, 2011)

Apple have also added Motorola to the complaint.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/10/apples-samsung-complaint-reveals-its-also-suing-motorola-over/


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2011)

I was surprised they hadn't when I was looking through pics of tablets earlier tbh.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> I was surprised they hadn't when I was looking through pics of tablets earlier tbh.


Well, why not? After all, the Xoom is square with a screen in the middle and Apple invented everything.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Incidentally,who gives a fuck. It just fuels each brigade against the other... Not really new practices, just more publicised... Creates more column inches though.. Jog on.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Incidentally,who gives a fuck. It just fuels each brigade against the other... Not really new practices, just more publicised... Creates more column inches though.. Jog on.


Well I'd imagine consumers who'd like to be able to choose from a selection of different products would give a fuck, as would those not so keen on having to pay extra because of all the legal costs involved with this patent bullshit.

If I fancied buying a Galaxy 10.1 I'd definitely give a fuck too.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Galaxy 10.1 will be on sale. FACT.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Galaxy 10.1 will be on sale. FACT.


Apple has blocked the sale of the tablet across Europe. FACT.



> Apple wins order preventing sale of Samsung rival in Europe
> APPLE’S iPAD may be comfortably outselling its rivals but the Californian company is taking no chances and has secured a court order to prevent the sale of the Samsung Galaxy tablet in Europe.
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232837.html





> Apple ruling blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab shipments across EU
> European customs officers have been ordered to seize shipments of Samsung's Galaxy Tab computers after Apple won a preliminary injunction against the Korean electronics giant in an acrimonious patent dispute.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/10/samsung-galaxy-tablets-seized





> A shell shocked Samsung was yesterday drawing up its a response after a court in Germany ordered it to pull sales of its new tablet computer across Europe over charges it had copied the look of the iPad.
> 
> Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 was launched to great fanfare in the UK last week, but customs officials in the European Union are under orders to seize shipments after Apple won a temporary injunction in a Dusseldorf court.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-hit-back-as-apple-blocks-tablet-2335554.html


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

When was it due to be released? What date?


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> When was it due to be released? What date?


It had already been released in the UK.



> The tablet, *which launched in Britain last week*, must now be removed from shelves and Samsung must stop marketing it. According to some retailers, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 became the fastest-selling tablet since the iPad 2 when it launched in Britain.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/8691707/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-10.1-blocked-in-Europe.html


 Interesting to read the user comments on that article too.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Missed that. lol.. bonkers.

Were you buying one then?


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Missed that. lol.. bonkers.
> 
> Were you buying one then?


I'm not interested in any tablets really, but I would have liked to have at least had the opportunity to play with one to make up my mind.

What do you think of Apple's actions here?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> What do you think of Apple's actions here?



Bonkers, as I said before. Can't bring myself to give a fuck though. Think they're all as bad as each other.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Bonkers, as I said before. Can't bring myself to give a fuck though. Think they're all as bad as each other.


Not sure if that's entirely true seeing as there's only one company currently blocking the sale of a rival product across all of Europe. What do you think of that kind of practice?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Just said it was bonkers...


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Just said it was bonkers...


Bonkers good? Bonkers bad? Bonkers wrong?

Are you for this practice? Against it? Think Apple are acting in a way that is good or bad for consumers? 

Sure seems odd to see you struggling to articulate a coherent opinion here.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Sorry, I consider 'bonkers' as a negative term. Didn't realise it was that difficult to work out.

When is 'bonkers' good??? Local rappers excepted...


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Sorry, I consider 'bonkers' as a negative term. Didn't realise it was that difficult to work out.


Bonkers is a vague term that can have several meanings, as well you know.

But just to get it cleared up: you think Apple are wrong to be pursuing this course of action and that blocking sales in this manner is a shitty thing to do that is bad for consumers generally? Have I got that right?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

YES!!!! Do you want me to shout it from the rooftops? Cos personally, I don't give a fuck.  As I said way up there ^^ I feel they're all as bad as each other, given the chance..


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> As I said way up there ^^ I feel they're all as bad as each other, given the chance..


Well, sort of, but without the added 'given the chance' qualifier. Still, at least we got there in the end.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Well, sort of, but without the added 'given the chance' qualifier. Still, at least we got there in the end.



It's a given though. Do you really think Samsung wouldn't take that competitive advantage if they could?? I reckon they would, they'd be stupid not to.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> It's a given though. Do you really think Samsung wouldn't take that competitive advantage if they could?? I reckon they would, they'd be stupid not to.


Not sure to be honest. Blocking products across Europe like this is very rare indeed and I'm struggling to think of many direct parallels.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Not sure to be honest. Blocking products across Europe like this is very rare indeed and I'm struggling to think of many direct parallels.



I reckon it's happened before. Didn't it happen with PS3.... (or try to)


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> I reckon it's happened before. Didn't it happen with PS3.... (or try to)


That wasn't really the same thing though.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Can't remember the details to be honest.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Can't remember the details to be honest.


It was about a patent dispute and was nothing to do with trying to nobble the launch of a well-reviewed rival product by completely blocking sales.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> It was about a patent dispute and was nothing to do with trying to nobble the launch of a well-reviewed rival product by completely blocking sales.



so, similar...

_The decision by the Regional Court of Dusseldorf in Germany to block sales of the device comes after a judge sided with Apple on claims that Galaxy Tab infringed on *patents* related to the iPad 2. _


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Except the other claim was not about stopping the sale of a hot rival product. 

So not that similar at all,  really.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Except the other claim was not about stopping the sale of a hot rival product.
> 
> So not that similar at all, really.



The case was related to LG's Blu-ray playback patents, essentially Sony have been selling a Blu-ray player that LG can't compete against; its sold some 40 million units which obviously means fewer people are buying LG players. LG are still, afaik, pursuing the patent claim which could net them $100 million+ . It may not be about stopping a rival product at launch, but other than it's not dissimilar.

That was part of a bigger patents battle too, Sony tried to block sales of LG phones in the US and I think there was some stuff related to TVs as well.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

The German competition laws are here (can you do link tags manually like the old here[./url] btw ed?) for anyone who wants to read up on them. I _think_ based on a quick look round (not on the site I just linked to which will be lunch time reading I think) that Germany doesn't actually have any trade dress laws, they're included in the trademark system... That may mean Apple has more room to maneuver on how Samsung are damaging their sales.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

Er... and editing. I deleted that badly formatted post, to see if I could rephrase the question to avoid link text, but it seems to be remembering my changes.

i...is there a help page or something?


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> But it does look like an iPad. It may not be an exact copy of an iPad, but it's pretty bloody similar... Depends what, specifically, the case hinges on - e.g whether it's just that version with the white back etc, but it's perfectly reasonable for a company to defend their designs. You may not think it's good for consumers, but then neither is a market where shamelessly ripping off another company's designs is acceptable. HTC, Asus etc all manage to design products that don't look like an iPad, but for some reason Samsung have decided to try lining the Galaxy up directly against the iPad (price point, spec, external look, OS look etc) - of course Apple are going to try and fight it.


It's not unreasonable to make it the same colour or have a version of it in the same colour though....Imagine if you wanted a red car you had to go to Ferrari, or a blue one Pugeot...


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

No it's not, but it depends on the rest of your product - if Peugeot released a car with similar bodywork to a Ferrari in Ferrari red it might raise a few eyebrows.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Except the other claim was not about stopping the sale of a hot rival product.
> 
> So not that similar at all,  really.



I don't understand the distinction you are making. That's exactly what the IP system is for.  

Presumably you don't have a problem with the law protecting rights in an original design? I'm assuming that if an individual designed a cool coffee pot (say) and were then ripped off by John Lewis, you would defend their right to take action? Well whether you like it or not, the same law protects the likes of Apple.  It doesn't distinguish between nice fluffy sole traders and big nasty corporations.

So, assuming you agree with the principle of the law, you are left with two options (broadly speaking) if you want to bring Apple's action down:

(a) The design is invalid, i.e. Apple shouldn't have been granted a registered design in the first place because it wasn't novel (i.e. it was already known) or was commonplace in the design field (and the key date here is 2004 remember); or

(b) There is no infringement, i.e. Samsung's design isn't sufficiently similar to Apple's registered design.

What doesn't make any sense is to argue that yes, it is right for there to be a principle of protecting original designs but no, Apple shouldn't enforce that right because the other side are 'rivals', or that consumers have a 'right' to buy a product, or just because you don't like the cut of Apple's jib.


----------



## mack (Aug 11, 2011)

With all these law suits flying around why are Samsung happy to supply Apple with screens? I know it's all different divisions and it comes down to money but it just seems a bit of joke.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/10/apple...to-meet-ipad-2-display-demands-report-claims/


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

I imagine Jobs could be found taking a shit on the Samsung director's bed and they wouldn't cancel those, they must be phenomenally lucrative.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> It may not be about stopping a rival product at launch, but other than it's not dissimilar.


The "stopping a rival product at launch" is the _whole issue_ here. The Galaxy is the most serious iPad rival to date and they're trying to cripple their rival using what many see as rather dodgy methods. They're doing the same to the Motorola too and the only people who are going to suffer are consumers who will be offered less choice while Apple get fatter and fatter. The law may be manipulated to allow Apple to act in this way, but I think it sucks.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

Winot's point answers that better than I can.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> Winot's point answers that better than I can.



I think Ed must have me on 'ignore'


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

I couldn't get rid of the image of Jobs sitting there all smug with shit on Lee Kun-Hee's bed so um... sorry...


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Winot said:


> I think Ed must have me on 'ignore'


What am I supposed to be responding to? I've repeatedly stated that I think Apple's actions suck and that I believe that their claim to  be highly spurious, regardless of what the niceties of the law and highly paid lawyers might decide. Is that clear enough for you now?


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

Find a tablet that looks remotely like an iPad prior to 2004 then.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> Find a tablet that looks remotely like an iPad prior to 2004 then.


And that's another spurious argument.

Oh, but why 2004? Why not say 2005? Or 2006?


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Anyway, for the lolz, here's the design award-winning COMPAQ TC1000. From 2003.

Hmm. Curved corners. Bezel. Metal trim. Black plastic...


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

Because that's when they filed the patents obviously.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

That's a hybrid for one thing, for another that pic is a bit complimentary...






There are similar design elements granted, but seen as a whole really it's quite a different design.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> What am I supposed to be responding to? I've repeatedly stated that I think Apple's actions suck and that I believe that their claim to be highly spurious, regardless of what the niceties of the law and highly paid lawyers might decide. Is that clear enough for you now?



Well if you think that the way the world works should be based on whether or not *you* think something sucks rather than what the law says then you are right, there's nothing more you need to say.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> Because that's when they filed the patents obviously.



Obviously not obvious enough.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Winot said:


> Well if you think that the way the world works should be based on whether or not *you* think something sucks rather than what the law says then you are right, there's nothing more you need to say.


It's called expressing an opinion. It's what bulletin boards are rather good for.
And just because laws exist that doesn't make them good or right.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> There are similar design elements granted, but seen as a whole really it's quite a different design.


You asked for something that looked 'remotely like an iPad prior to 2004'.

I believe that Compaq fits the bill admirably.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> It's called expressing an opinion. It's what bulletin boards are rather good for.
> And just because laws exist that doesn't make them good or right.



Comment is free but facts are sacred.  And I'm just trying to provide a few facts.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2011)

editor said:


> You asked for something that looked 'remotely like an iPad prior to 2004'.
> 
> I believe that Compaq fits the bill admirably.



Ok, it does look remotely like it, however it's a different type of machine and is also significantly different.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 11, 2011)

Samsung should remake the 1984 Apple advert. Guess who the baddie should be!


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

Cid said:


> Ok, it does look remotely like it, however it's a different type of machine and is also significantly different.



If it looks like it and was available before March 2004 then that's enough to invalidate the Apple registered design.

How close it needs to be is a tricky thing to assess and depends on what was commonplace in the field at the time and the 'design freedom' i.e. did the designer _need_ to adopt specific features (e.g. from a functional standpoint) or did s/he have free rein.

Registered designs are easy to obtain (the 'originality' hurdle is quite low) but the rights afforded tend to be _very _narrow indeed.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2011)

Winot said:


> If it looks like it and was available before March 2004 then that's enough to invalidate the Apple registered design.


It was reviewed in June 2002 and complimented on being an "extremely small, light, slate-style tablet PC" and was winning design awards in 2003.

Compaq TC1000


----------



## Kanda (Aug 11, 2011)

It was extremely small and light back then maybe...  am sure we've got an old one in our store somewhere, bulky as fuck these days!!


----------



## lobster (Aug 11, 2011)

Honestly I am not surprised by this, I am actually pleased this is getting a lot of attention, as Microsoft tried to claim Linux and various free software was violating its patents, without actually showing what has been violated, as programmers can simply work around them if they was really any violations, its a move of fear which has failed to materialize. Apple are doing exactly the same this time with hardware.

It is also amusing to see how far capitalism is willing to go.


----------



## elbows (Aug 11, 2011)

Apples complaint in full is here, in German, but shouldn't be hard to machine-translate bits of it you want to see the full horror of their complaint:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for-EU-Wide-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1

I've not got time to run any of it through a translator right now but looking at all the pictures they include gives some clue, and yes there are pictures of the box there.


----------



## Winot (Aug 11, 2011)

elbows said:


> Apples complaint in full is here, in German, but shouldn't be hard to machine-translate bits of it you want to see the full horror of their complaint:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for-EU-Wide-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1
> 
> I've not got time to run any of it through a translator right now but looking at all the pictures they include gives some clue, and yes there are pictures of the box there.



Haven't read it either, but according to Florian Muller (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html) they have pleaded unfair competition as well as registered design infringement which would explain the packaging point.


----------



## Greebozz (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm down with his time machine business, I'm going back to patent  the rectangle, I'll be a billionaire mu ha ha.


----------



## Jambooboo (Aug 13, 2011)

Anyone actually got one of these? I love the Galaxy S2 phone, and if the tablet is just as good but supersized, well it'd be worth a purchase.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2011)

It gets more interesting:


> Apple allegedly doctored evidence in patent case against Samsung





> Apple has managed to block sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia and in the European Union, but new evidence from Computerworld’s Dutch sister site Webwereld.nl suggests the iPad maker may be tampering with evidence. According to the report, Apple is using an image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 that is purposely distorted to look more like the iPad. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is presented with an aspect ratio of 1.36 (the proportions of the device itself, not the display) while the iPad is shown with a 1.30 aspect ratio. However, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet itself actually has a 1.46 aspect ratio. “This is a blunder,” Klos Morel Vos & Schaap lawyer Arnout Groen told Webwereld.nl. “That such a ‘mistake’ is made in a case about design rights can scarcely be a coincidence
> 
> http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/15/apple-allegedly-doctored-evidence-in-patent-case-against-samsung/


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2011)

Interesting comment from a reader about how the comparison has also been somewhat loaded:



> 1) modify aspect ratio
> 2) remove the "Samsung" that reads on the front
> 3) open the app drawer to make it look more similar
> 4) turn it 90° (it is always shown landscape in ads)



(The way the icons are shown displayed on the screen is not the default for an Android tablet.)

Here's what Apple are claiming (translated):



> The entire [look] of the two products shown above is nearly identical, because the
> GalaxyTab 10,1 copies all distinctive elements of the equipment iPad 2: (i) a
> rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners; (ii) a flat, clear
> surface, which takes the front off of the product; (iii) the opinion of a
> ...



Weeellll, if it's got coloured icons, and glass that is flat with a display underneath...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 16, 2011)

Jambooboo said:


> Anyone actually got one of these? I love the Galaxy S2 phone, and if the tablet is just as good but supersized, well it'd be worth a purchase.


I've seen one and it looks nicer than my Transformer.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2011)

You can see Apple's full claim here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for-EU-Wide-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1 The white box claim is truly beyond belief.

Top ranked comment on Engadget's site:


> Can't believe a US company thinks it has the right to decide what a Korea company sells in Europe, just because the design, which they stole from that 1997 video (someone link it), is similar to that of Samsung. Apple will get a wake up call when in a few weeks all bans are lifted and the consumers and more importantly, every European retailer, is left with a loathing for Apple.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/german-court-lifts-ban-on-some-european-samsung-galaxy-10-1-sale/


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2011)

The injunction has now been lifted across all of Europe except for Germany.
http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-injunction-lifted-across-europe-992453


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2011)

Here's how revolutionary Apple's iPad tablet design is. This is from 1994:






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 16, 2011)

editor said:


> The injunction has now been lifted across all of Europe except for Germany.
> http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-injunction-lifted-across-europe-992453



Wonder how many iPads have been sold during the period of the ban?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 18, 2011)

Bloody hell Apple aint taking prisoners! They're now trying to stop all Galaxy smartphones being sold!



> Apple has already tried to ban the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in most of Europe (injunction lifted), but today they are going even farther with their legal proceedings, asking a Dutch court to ban all Galaxy series devices. The ban includes the widely popular Galaxy S II, which has seen some success in Europe.



Talk about full spectrum dominance strategy!


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Bloody hell Apple aint taking prisoners! They're now trying to stop all Galaxy smartphones being sold!


Apple just sink lower and lower in my estimation every day. They can't win on innovation - the Galaxy S2 is pretty much recognised as the superior handset -  so they embark on these fucking ludicrous court cases instead.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 18, 2011)

They're not ludicrous they make perfect rational sense.


----------



## elbows (Aug 18, 2011)

They've won on innovation in the past, and there is no reason why they could not do so again in future, which makes me especially unhappy that they employ these other strategies as well. In fact on of the problems with viewing this from the innovation perspective is that such things play directly into the whole patent game, Apple will say they are defending their past innovations.

If they succeed in getting popular devices blocked from sale in countries for any length of time, the amount of ill-will and hate for Apple and their brand will soar.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 18, 2011)

They're just following the standard for creative to commercial success. Think of a great band, think about how creative they were before they became safe due to fame and money. Same mindset, success kills innovation and breeds an attempt to consolidate what you have.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2011)

elbows said:


> If they succeed in getting popular devices blocked from sale in countries for any length of time, the amount of ill-will and hate for Apple and their brand will soar.


Indeed. Although they're hardly representative of the general public (yet), reading the tech blogs shows a growing resentment for Apple's despicable strategies to block competitors.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> They're just following the standard for creative to commercial success. Think of a great band, think about how creative they were before they became safe due to fame and money. Same mindset, success kills innovation and breeds an attempt to consolidate what you have.


This is utter tosh. Great bands win and retain loyal fans by creating fresh, innovative music, and if a slew of copycat bands emerge trying to emulate their success, then they simply outshine them by moving on and creating even better sounds.

What they almost never do is to try and block the sales of their rivals with highly dubious legal claims and armies of lawyers. If they did, they'd probably find themselves losing fans fast.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't think being a great musician precludes you from being a cunt, doubtless many of them would sue if they could - I mean half of them sue their bandmates.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2011)

Cid said:


> I don't think being a great musician precludes you from being a cunt, doubtless many of them would sue if they could - I mean half of them sue their bandmates.


But not, crucially, _other bands_, which would have to happen for this wafer-thin analogy to make any sense.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2011)

Well yes but more because you can't sue someone for sounding similar than any sense of altruism.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2011)

Incidentally I quite like the idea that a good company should always be one step ahead, it's what I rely on in my work as it's hard to get IP on it, but with the research budgets involved in high end R&D it's not really viable.

Apple's case is looking pretty weak now, must be said... Still think they have every right to protect their IP, but not on faulty grounds.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 19, 2011)

Cid said:


> I don't think being a great musician precludes you from being a cunt, doubtless many of them would sue if they could - I mean half of them sue their bandmates.



Which they wouldn't do if there wasn't any money involved. Plenty of big bands have lost what they originally had due to the fame and money. 

What Apple is doing is perfectly rational and indeed correct given their position in the current economic system. If you don't like corporations making tons of cash and exploiting their success then you change the system of money...


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What Apple is doing is perfectly rational and indeed correct given their position in the current economic system.


You're defending the indefensible. Apple's actions ultimately lead to_ less_ choice for consumers, _less_ competition and less innovation and that can never be a good thing.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2011)

Same attitude towards Dyson when he sued Hoover?


----------



## Teepee (Aug 20, 2011)

editor said:


> It gets more interesting:
> ​



and again,






link http://www.itworld.com/it-managemen...-files-inaccurate-evidence-dutch-samsung-case


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 20, 2011)

editor said:


> You're defending the indefensible. Apple's actions ultimately lead to_ less_ choice for consumers, _less_ competition and less innovation and that can never be a good thing.



You're an idiot, I'm not defending anything. Unlike you I don't have an emotional connection to any corporation. 

What I've done is point out how I think these things work and attempt to construct some understanding of why a corporation acts the way it does.


----------



## grit (Aug 20, 2011)

editor said:


> You're defending the indefensible. Apple's actions ultimately lead to_ less_ choice for consumers, _less_ competition and less innovation and that can never be a good thing.



Which as their main obligation is towards their share holders, that's exactly what they should be trying to achieve. Its up to the regulation to stop it happening.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 20, 2011)

Indeed, the editor has staggering levels of ignorance when it comes to how corporations work within this financial system...


----------



## grit (Aug 20, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Indeed, the editor has staggering levels of ignorance when it comes to how corporations work within this financial system...



In fairness I get the impression its high amounts of denial rather than pure ignorance.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Indeed, the editor has staggering levels of ignorance when it comes to how corporations work within this financial system...


I was going to comment on some breaking news, but as I see it's descended down to the usual pathetic personal insults, I'll leave it.

Here's the link for anyone interested in actually discussing the topic of this thread:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/netherlands-judge-rules-that-samsung-galaxy-s-s-ii-violate-appl/


----------



## Gromit (Aug 24, 2011)

Typical. I was just thinking that the Galaxy S 2 might be my next phone come my free upgrade in October.

Mind you October is a long way away and i might have more options by then. iPhone 5 may be out which might prod other releases from rivals.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 24, 2011)

The Dutch news reports are saying that it is really a defeat for Apple. Samsung only have to make small changes to be free from any patent issues, is how they are describing this judgement.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Typical. I was just thinking that the Galaxy S 2 might be my next phone come my free upgrade in October.


It's still available in the UK, and Apple's lame patent claims are looking less and less likely to achieve their underhand objective. The S2 is a great phone.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 24, 2011)

It seems to beat the Sensation spec wise. I'd be giving up HTC Sense but I don't think that will be a major sacrifice.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2011)

Gromit said:


> It seems to beat the Sensation spec wise. I'd be giving up HTC Sense but I don't think that will be a major sacrifice.


I swapped over from a HTC Desire - you can get just about all of the HTC's bolt-on functionality via third party apps - if indeed, you actually want it.


----------



## Winot (Aug 25, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's the link for anyone interested in actually discussing the topic of this thread:
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/netherlands-judge-rules-that-samsung-galaxy-s-s-ii-violate-appl/



Just to note, upthread we were discussing Apple's allegation that the Samsung device looked like the iPad (and therefore infringed Apple's EU design registration).  This is a different issue, namely allegations of patent infringement, which are concerned with the *functionality* of the Samsung device.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2011)

grit said:


> In fairness I get the impression its high amounts of denial rather than pure ignorance.



Funny I'd never considered that.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Funny I'd never considered that.


Please stop this unpleasant and disruptive campaign of personal attacks and keep to the topic under discussion. Thank you.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 25, 2011)

editor said:


> Please stop this unpleasant and disruptive campaign of personal attacks and keep to the topic under discussion. Thank you.



There's no more a campaign than there is when you come on to any thread that has anything that could be negative about Android and start bleating about Apple. It's just a view get over it and grow up ffs.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2011)

Back on topic, a Dutch judge has said that Apple's dodgy 'swipe to unlock' claim looks set to be deemed trivial and invalid.

It looks like it wasn't even their idea in the first place, with a Windows CE phone having a near identical function back in 2005 (before Apple filed their patent).

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judge-considers-apples-slide-to.html


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

And now Apple has contrived to get the Samsung Galaxy 7.7 tablet banned from the annual IFA electronics show in Berlin.



http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/369688/now-apple-sends-samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-into-hiding


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

And? given that it looks a lot like its predecessors it would be inconsistent of them not to.


----------



## c01642 (Sep 5, 2011)

I now understand why apple are  so worried...not!

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/09/...-figures-only-20k-sold-until-now-says-lenovo/


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Sep 5, 2011)

TBH it's probably given them more publicity then anything.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> And? given that it looks a lot like its predecessors it would be inconsistent of them not to.


You'd have to be on pretty strong drugs to mistake a Samsung  7" tablet with an 10.1" iPad.



c01642 said:


> I now understand why apple are so worried...not!


Those figures - rather bizarrely - come from Lenovo. But with Android already grabbing 20% of the tablet market, perhaps Apple are looking to what happened to their once unassailable lead in the smartphone market? They're now _miles_ behind Android.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> And? given that it looks a lot like its predecessors it would be inconsistent of them not to.



Yup not exactly rocket science to work that out...


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> You'd have to be on pretty strong drugs to mistake a Samsung 7" tablet with an 10.1" iPad.



Feel like an echo here, but it depends what ground their claims are based on.



> Those figures - rather bizarrely - come from Lenovo. But with Android already grabbing 20% of the tablet market, perhaps Apple are looking to what happened to their once unassailable lead in the smartphone market? They're now _miles_ behind Android.



Android and Apple are not directly comparable; one is an open-source OS, the other is a technology company with their own non-licensed OS. Apple is primarily directed to the high-end of the market (although this may change, hints of a cheap version of the iPhone 4/iPhone 5 lite) so obviously the lucrative lower end of the market is going to be dominated by 'Android' (or, to be accurate, companies like ZTE), the middle by Samsung, LG, HTC etc and the top a nasty fight between them all. The business models are completely different, Apple relies on high end sales as a package, it then gets limited profit from its apps, music sales etc, but iirc most of it comes from the hardware... Android relies on flooding the market, possibly this plays into google's advertising based profit model, possibly they are expecting to profit through app sales (although that seems unlikely given that the OS is open-source), but in the end google is essentially a software company. Apple is a hardware manufacturer, it relies heavily on its software as part of that, but it needs to sell hardware to profit... Two very different businesses.

Incidentally, given your (admirable) stance on ads on this site, do you not have any qualms about the fact that google's entire business model is geared around advertising?


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> Incidentally, given your (admirable) stance on ads on this site, do you not have any qualms about the fact that google's entire business model is geared around advertising?


I'm failing to see any remote connection here, but seeing as Google provide me with a vast array of class-leading tools which I use every single day at precisely zero cost to me, then I don't have any problem with how their business is set up.

I haven't got any problem with advertising-drive models per se either, for that matter - it's things like corporate abuses of power that tend to annoy me more.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> Android and Apple are not directly comparable; one is an open-source OS, the other is a technology company with their own non-licensed OS. Apple is primarily directed to the high-end of the market (although this may change, hints of a cheap version of the iPhone 4/iPhone 5 lite) so obviously the lucrative lower end of the market is going to be dominated by 'Android' (or, to be accurate, companies like ZTE), the middle by Samsung, LG, HTC etc and the top a nasty fight between them all.


Oh, and just to point out the sizeable flaw in that argument: the comparably priced Samsung S2 has been outselling the iPhone 4 in the UK for three months in a row.


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

How is that a flaw in the argument? 

All I said is that Apple is not directly comparable to Android, doesn't mean Apple can't fail. At any rate just looking at UK sales for 3 months post-release is a tad disingenuous; in the last trading quarter Apple reports sales of some 20 million iPhones, which is frankly staggering given that there were no new releases in that period_._


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> At any rate just looking at UK sales for 3 months post-release is a tad disingenuous; in the last trading quarter Apple reports sales of some 20 million iPhones, which is frankly staggering given that there were no new releases in that period.


There's nothing 'disingenuous' about simply reporting the fact that Android has been outselling Apple in the higher end of the market in the UK for a quarter of the year. The phone was released nearly six months ago, btw.


----------



## elbows (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> There's nothing 'disingenuous' about simply reporting the fact that Android has been outselling Apple in the higher end of the market in the UK for a quarter of the year. The phone was released nearly six months ago, btw.



Indeed. Although a complete analysis of this situation would be amiss if it did not mention that a new iPhone model is overdue, and this has likely had some effect on iPhone sales, although its impossible to say to what extent.

Samsung have been doing very well, and have shown themselves capable of producing devices that lots of people want. I expect Apple went after then because they are a threat, and there were enough similarities that Apple could at least begin these dubious legal adventures, even if their case is not strong enough to go the distance they have still been able to disrupt Samsung. Its possible that Apple did this in order to try to bend the timing to their favour, ie cause Samsung some delays during a crucial period where Apples next iPhone and IPad have not yet been announced.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> I expect Apple went after then because they are a threat, and there were enough similarities that Apple could at least begin these dubious legal adventures, even if their case is not strong enough to go the distance they have still been able to disrupt Samsung. Its possible that Apple did this in order to try to bend the timing to their favour, ie cause Samsung some delays during a crucial period where Apples next iPhone and IPad have not yet been announced.


I think that's pretty much self evident, tbh. The last iOS update "slavishly copied" from BB and Android, and with no real innovation to offer and a model refresh update some way away, I suspect Apple felt compelled to embark on this rather dubious and distasteful adventure as a means of nobbling what is frankly a better product.


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> There's nothing 'disingenuous' about simply reporting the fact that Android has been outselling Apple in the higher end of the market in the UK for a quarter of the year. The phone was released nearly six months ago, btw.



No it wasn't, it started retailing in May and the figures in your article are for the first 85 days of sales. Anyway, that was an aside, nothing to say that Samsung can't/shouldn't be more successful than Apple in the high end of the market...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm failing to see any remote connection here, but seeing as Google provide me with a vast array of class-leading tools which I use every single day at precisely zero cost to me, then I don't have any problem with how their business is set up.
> 
> I haven't got any problem with advertising-drive models per se either, for that matter - it's things like corporate abuses of power that tend to annoy me more.



If it's free you're the product. You've been bought and sold by Google in more ways than you know.


----------



## elbows (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> I think that's pretty much self evident, tbh. The last iOS update "slavishly copied" from BB and Android, and with no real innovation to offer and a model refresh update some way away, I suspect Apple felt compelled to embark on this rather dubious and distasteful adventure as a means of nobbling what is frankly a better product.



The term innovation is loaded, especially when it comes to Apple.

The main innovation was touch (and multitouch) and associated UI that didn't suck, didn't cause so much frustration, and a few specific implementations such as pinch-to-zoom where it mattered in browser etc. And then later their success with the App Store.

Since then there have been things here and there which are good, but won't necessarily be seen as innovations, or may have characteristics which go down badly with people so they will struggle to attach a positive label like innovation to them.

When the iPad came out lots of people sneered at it for just being a large iPod touch, yet it must actually have been innovative in some sense because it has created a new market and competitors have rushed to catch up.

I would suggest that Apples attitude towards filesystems on iOS, and a couple of details about how they will handle cloud stuff could be described as innovative. And certainly some of the stuff that they are doing with iOS & Apple TV is innovative, although likely a niche for some time to come.

Now when it comes to the competition, Im not sure how innovative they are being either. Give me some examples of innovative stuff Samsung are doing, because to me it looks like they are tending to win based on hardware spec, OS openness etc, rather than innovation per se.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If it's free you're the product. You've been bought and sold by Google in more ways than you know.


But you _do_ know, right?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> The term innovation is loaded, especially when it comes to Apple.
> 
> The main innovation was touch (and multitouch) and associated UI that didn't suck, didn't cause so much frustration, and a few specific implementations such as pinch-to-zoom where it mattered in browser etc. And then later their success with the App Store.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> Give me some examples of innovative stuff Samsung are doing, because to me it looks like they are tending to win based on hardware spec, OS openness etc, rather than innovation per se.


It has a screen described as being "nothing short of spectacular" and "better than the iPhone 4's," it comes with a great camera with "one of the finest smartphone camera sensors around" and was reviewed as being the best smartphone currently available.

The innovation comes in fitting all that into an "almost impossibly thin", well integrated package that weighs just 116g. And then there's Kies, which lets me upload/download/view/play music photos and videos wirelessly on my desktop browser, as well as check phone logs, read and answer texts etc etc. It's not "changing everything" that's for sure, but it is collectively making up the most compelling mobile experience out there, IMO.


> We liked nigh-on EVERYTHING on the Samsung Galaxy S2. It's rare we get to evangelise a handset so much – in fact we haven't managed to do so since we opened the box on the HTC Desire and realised a slick experience could live outside the iPhone.
> 
> But with the Samsung Galaxy S2, things have been ratcheted up a notch. The Super AMOLED plus screen, with improved sub-pixel density, is a joy to behold, and the 4.3-inch screen size is made palatable for smaller hands thanks to the ridiculously thin dimensions.
> 
> ...


But the point is that Apple has always been the market leader when it comes to innovation, with new releases redefining the mobile experience and shaming their rivals. It's what Apple are famous for. Until now they'e been brilliant at coming up with incredible new ideas.

But it now seems to be creating very little that's actually_ exciting_ with the real innovation going on elsewhere. The innovations in the last IOS update blatantly ripped off Android and BB and to see Apple now relying on really spurious legal claims to nobble their rivals just seems a bit, well, pathetic.

Edit to add: I think this guy - who is an Apple fan - says it better than I can about Apple's recent antics:



> IFA 2011 - A PR Disaster for Apple
> 
> Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 pulled from Berlin IFA show floor.
> Last night I had some drinks with some of the tech journalists which cover IFA . Everybody agreed: this is a PR disaster for Apple as such behaviour just breeds very strong Anti-Apple sentiments with the tech crowd. It also tells everybody that the Samsung products are dangerous for Apple aka “good enough” for consumers. If I were Samsung I would run some remakes of those 1984 commercials once this litigation gets settled. Apple, you are creating yourself a very Microsoftie image right now
> ...


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

Which innovations do you class as 'blatant rip-offs'? In terms of releases, the iPhone 4 was only a little over a year ago, and the iPad 2 is only 6 months old... You may not think either of those were particularly exciting, but an awful lot of people would be inclined to disagree. Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of Apple that really piss me off (30% on in-app sales, wobbly censor fingers, corporate arrogance to name a few), but both of those were intuitive, have great ergonomics and aesthetics and a superb tactile experience. Samsung, from what I've seen, are just doing the same thing but with better hardware...


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> Which innovations do you class as 'blatant rip-offs'?


The new IOS notification system was almost universally described as a total rip off of Androids, and the new iMessage system couldn't be more BBM if it tried.


> Five Ways Apple Rips-Off Android with iOS 5
> 
> Notification Center
> Apple's Notification Center.
> ...


----------



## elbows (Sep 5, 2011)

I dont recall you speaking of Apples prior innovations in quite such glowing terms at the time, so forgive me for thinking that you only do so here in order that they may fall further and harder in your strange tale of innovation and ripoffs that I do not recognise as a balanced view.

Apple do not have a history of innovating with every release cycle. They have a history of launching brand new products which come to redefine certain sectors early in the products life, and then coming up with relatively minor refreshes that can be hard to describe as innovative. Over time some of the most glaring omissions are rectified, and they often do just enough to the spec to keep their stuff competitive, and yes they refresh the visual design of the product hardware quite a lot. Sometimes they try and steal a march with stuff like the retina display for example, but you of all people should know that new models often lack amazing innovation. Apple compromise on different things to others, focussing their energies in areas others have neglected, but at the expense of some stuff that people can hardly believe they have omitted, surprising compromises that are likely responsible both for some of Apples most notable successes, but also some great flops. I also have little doubt that the unusual compromises and risks that Apple make and take are a primary reason that people have formed negative predictions about specific Apple products in the past, only to be wrong.

I have not spent enough time with Android or other devices in order to determine what may have been 'ripped off'. But I can certainly say that the next iOS has lots of changes, and of course you aren't going to spot any innovation if you are only focussed on a couple of headline features which may have been heavily inspired by how other operating systems handle such matters.

Its no big deal, this is just my rant about why I think the term innovation is unhelpful here, I don't see how we can get consistency with judging what counts as innovative and what is just a spec bump that takes the device past its rivals for a while. I'm far more in tune with what you are saying when you talk about the full experience with the Samsung device. I cannot comment on how it fares in this regard, but as I have long tried to find a word to describe what Apple have done right, and had to plump for experience despite this word having been soiled by the usual marketing drivel long before the church of iPhone was open for business. The experience of being able to use a sophisticated mobile device without getting as frustrated as we would have done 5 years ago is joy, and three cheers to all designers who are making this possible, regardless of their corporate affiliation. But since we cannot expect us to just focus on this positive when posting here, since a forum that just featured people going joy joy joy all the time does not sound very human, we have these little disagreements over the way we are expressing ourselves. And a number of us seem to have picked a side to bat for. My position is pretty simple, I want to see strong competition, particularly I want to see lots of really great tablets, but at the same time I need Apple not to drop the ball completely, because I have invested plenty in iOS software and so am pretty locked in for this cycle of mobile computing.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> I dont recall you speaking of Apples prior innovations in quite such glowing terms at the time..


And there you are very, very wrong. If I could be arsed, I could furnish you with a very long list of praiseworthy comments I've delivered here about at Apple products like the iPhone, MacBook and iPad.

I may not like the company's businesses practices or ethos, but I've been pretty much consistent in my praise for the iPhone 4 and iPad, but just in case you're in any doubt let me repeat myself: I think the iPhone4 is easily one of the best smartphones available, I think that there's no better tablet than the iPad2 and that MacBooks are absolutely _lovely_ machines.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 5, 2011)

The big potential innovation with iOS 5 is going to be iCloud, IMO. The messaging and notification stuff is just UI tweaking (the messaging is how texts _should_ be done on _every_ phone but it's not some amazing new idea). If handled well, and tied into the desktop, it could be a drastic change to concepts of file storage on an OS level, and a big challenge to the "cloud" data model (which I'm happy about as I don't like that).

Of course if handled badly it could just be a permanent annoyance, with every app trying to sync with a shitty service that fails half the time and ending up doing workarounds in the fragmented way they're currently done, and having used iDisk for ages I'm not going to assume that Apple are going to do it properly.


----------



## elbows (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> And there you are very, very wrong. If I could be arsed, I could furnish you with a very long list of praiseworthy comments I've delivered here about at Apple products like the iPhone, MacBook and iPad.
> 
> I may not like the company's businesses practices or ethos, but I've been pretty much consistent in my praise for the iPhone 4 and iPad, but just in case you're in any doubt let me repeat myself: I think the iPhone4 is easily one of the best smartphones available, I think that there's no better tablet than the iPad2 and that MacBooks are absolutely _lovely_ machines.



I know you are willing to praise specific products, I do not accuse you of speaking no good of all that Apple makes. My rant was about the use of the term innovation, and I well recall how you have expressed yourself in regards to what you thought of innovation and Apple products during the pre-launch and release phases of many of their iOS products. Likewise I don't recall you giving Android a hard time for being inspired by some of the things Apple initially did right. I don't disagree at all with the substance of very many of those posts, plenty of your criticisms were valid, but lets not pretend that the mood of your Apple-related posts has ever ben gushing in its praise for innovation, at the very most you may have occasionally attempted to do this in hindsight, often at a moment where you are trying to defend yourself from rabid criticism that paints you as an unbalanced Apple-hater, whose jeers at apple are matched only in volume by your cheers for competing systems.


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> The new IOS notification system was almost universally described as a total rip off of Androids, and the new iMessage system couldn't be more BBM if it tried.



Oh come on, the idea of pop out notifications has been around at least since that fucking chirpy cunt of a paperclip.


----------



## elbows (Sep 5, 2011)

So then, specific innovations. I was surprised at work today when someone told me they were getting an Apple TV for their birthday. It took me some time to figure out that their reason for wanting one is that they got an iPhone not so long ago, and I believe they have been totally sold on the idea of being able to see their photos and video they have taken with the iPhone, on their telly.

I don't care whether this is considered innovative or not, what interests me is that they have sold some people on this idea. Not needing to plug the phone into the telly helps, along with making it easy to use in software. But actually making people aware that this is possible seems real key. Have they got an advert on the telly that shows this stuff off, think I may have seen one weeks ago but don't watch a lot of tv so can't really remember.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> Oh come on, the idea of pop out notifications has been around at least since that fucking chirpy cunt of a paperclip.


Shame that Apple made such a poor job of it before being so inspired by Android then, really.

But if you think there's really nothing in it, I suggest you take it up with the countless writers who all seemed to agree that it was a pretty much a blatant rip.


> *Apple copies a bunch of features from Android, calls it iOS5 *
> 1. Notifications. In iOS5 notifications will appear at the top of your screen and you can drag the bar down to see all the notifications in one place.
> 
> Original? Definitely not. Android has had that since version 1.0. Recently they improved it in Android 3 so developers can make rich notifications that are more than just text and an image. So iOS5 notifications have caught up to Android 1.0 notifications. The only original part is integration of notifications into the lock screen. Some 3rd party apps provide that for Android but it’s not built-in.
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/...tures-from-android-calls-it-ios5-updated/2295


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> I know you are willing to praise specific products, I do not accuse you of speaking no good of all that Apple makes. My rant was about the use of the term innovation, and I well recall how you have expressed yourself in regards to what you thought of innovation and Apple products during the pre-launch and release phases of many of their iOS products. Likewise I don't recall you giving Android a hard time for being inspired by some of the things Apple initially did right. I don't disagree at all with the substance of very many of those posts, plenty of your criticisms were valid, but lets not pretend that the mood of your Apple-related posts has ever ben gushing in its praise for innovation, at the very most you may have occasionally attempted to do this in hindsight, often at a moment where you are trying to defend yourself from rabid criticism that paints you as an unbalanced Apple-hater, whose jeers at apple are matched only in volume by your cheers for competing systems.



It's weird because I don't remember the Ed praising the iPhone when it came out, I remember him bitching endlessly about it not having a hardware keyboard, multitasking or an app store. When the Android phones dumped non screen keyboards he suddenly found on screen ones very easy to use!


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's weird because I don't remember the Ed praising the iPhone when it came out, I remember him bitching endlessly about it not having a hardware keyboard, multitasking or an app store.


I wasn't impressed with the first iPhone model and said so at the time. I'm not claiming otherwise, so is there a point to your post?


Kid_Eternity said:


> When the Android phones dumped non screen keyboards he suddenly found on screen ones very easy to use!


That'll be because keyboard software has advanced massively, with innovative products like Swype and SwiftKey bringing vast improvements to usability.


----------



## Cid (Sep 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Shame that Apple made such a poor job of it before being so inspired by Android then, really.
> 
> But if you think there's really nothing in it, I suggest you take it up with the countless writers who all seemed to agree that it was a pretty much a blatant rip.



And equally Android was clearly quite heavily inspired by iOS in some ways. Technology leapfrogs, you get an 'innovative' product, others play catch up, then the original 'innovators' refine their original designs and, yeah, they'll take 'inspirartion' from the new guys. I have no problem with this, often the designs can be traced back to that cunt of a paperclip - they're not enormously original; 'innovative' perhaps, but as elbows says that's a very hard thing to define. This is also why I'm not enormously happy with the way Apple have handled this, but it is certainly true that they defined the look of the current generation of tablets (and a certain amount of smartphones), there may be pre-existing devices that look similar, but they're rare and never really took off (well, afaik) - Apple brought it all together with some really nice aesthetic design. Do I think they're right to defend that? I'm not sure... Certainly those early pics with the 4 icons at the bottom of a home screen on such a similar device took the piss a bit, but perhaps might have been settled less acrimoniously. Still, any company should be able to defend its IP in a capitalist system.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2011)

Cid said:


> And equally Android was clearly quite heavily inspired by iOS in some ways.


Of course and Apple were no doubt inspired by Palm who were inspired by products before them and so and so on. Apple didn't invent the smartphone or the touchscreen or mobile apps but they put together existing technlogy, adding their own bit of genius to come up with something that was a major step forward.

These kind of innovations traditionally force rivals to up their game and improve on the competition's new features with the consumer benefiting from greater choice and better technology.

But getting your rival's products banned all over Europe on really dubious legal grounds really fucking sucks all round.


----------



## Cid (Sep 6, 2011)

Again, not knowing the details of the latest claims, it's kind of hard to comment on how dubious they are...


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2011)

Cid said:


> Again, not knowing the details of the latest claims, it's kind of hard to comment on how dubious they are...



Dubious = Ed doesn't like the cut of their jib.  It's the law, Urban75-style.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2011)

Winot said:


> Dubious = Ed doesn't like the cut of their jib.


The claims against Samsung's tablet have been well documented. So have you an opinion on that, or not?

Mind you, the judge certainly doesn't seem too impressed thus far:


> Apple might need to reveal iPad and iPad 2 sales for the U.S. or U.K. in order to show its tablet business has been negatively affected by the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, a judge in Australia said today, according to Bloomberg.
> 
> Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett said in the Sydney Federal Court today that Apple isn't presenting enough evidence to justify an injunction against Samsung's tablet. Therefore, in order to prove that the iPad maker is actually seeing its tablet sales being negatively affected by Samsung's device, it will need to offer up sales data to make its case, Bloomberg is reporting...
> 
> ...


So, who buys into the line that Samsung's tablet is 'hurting' iPad sales? Anyone?


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2011)

editor said:


> The claims against Samsung's tablet have been well documented. So have you an opinion on that, or not?
> 
> Mind you, the judge certainly doesn't seem too impressed thus far:
> So, who buys into the line that Samsung's tablet is 'hurting' iPad sales? Anyone?



Cid was talking about the latest claims.  No, I don't have a view, because I'm not an expert on German unfair competion law, only on UK/European patent law.  Also, I get paid to look at the detail and reach a conclusion on the facts, not to speculate on the internet.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2011)

Winot said:


> Cid was talking about the latest claims. No, I don't have a view, because I'm not an expert on German unfair competion law, only on UK/European patent law. Also, I get paid to look at the detail and reach a conclusion on the facts, not to speculate on the internet.


So if you have no view and you're not prepared to speculate or chat about it on a thread _specifically set up for that purpose_, it does rather make me wonder why you're bothering to post anything at all. Or is it because you're not being paid here?


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2011)

editor said:


> So if you have no view and you're not prepared to speculate or chat about it on a thread _specifically set up for that purpose_, it does rather make me wonder why you're bothering to post anything at all. Or is it because you're not being paid here?



Come on, that's below the belt - I've made a number of posts on a number of different IP threads which have tried neutrally to point out a few facts and to correct a few misapprehensions (take a look at my past exchanges with Grit and Elbows for example). I've also said upthread that in my view Apple will lose the registered design spat with Samsung (post #30).  I'm just not going to opine about a claim I know nothing about.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2011)

Winot said:


> Come on, that's below the belt - I've made a number of posts on a number of different IP threads which have tried neutrally to point out a few facts and to correct a few misapprehensions (take a look at my past exchanges with Grit and Elbows for example). I've also said upthread that in my view Apple will lose the registered design spat with Samsung (post #30). I'm just not going to opine about a claim I know nothing about.


I'm simply responding to what you said in your last post.

You're not posting under your professional name here, so it's hardly a big deal to pass an _opinion_ on a question as basic as: "do you believe that Samsung's tablet is 'hurting' iPad sales in Europe?"


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2011)

If that's your only question then I've no difficulty in answering it: _I have absolutely no idea_.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 6, 2011)

Er who is winot and why does it matter that they might be someone?


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Er who is winot and why does it matter that they might be someone?



I'm no one important  (but I am a patent attorney so know a bit about this topic).


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 6, 2011)

Winot said:


> I'm no one important  (but I am a patent attorney so know a bit about this topic).


Bussman's holliday eh?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 6, 2011)

Winot said:


> I'm no one important  (but I am a patent attorney so know a bit about this topic).



Ah ok. Just found it odd your real life status was being made something of...


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Ah ok. Just found it odd your real life status was being made something of...


It might be _because he mentioned it earlier. _


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 6, 2011)

Yeah but you raised it needlessly above which was odd to say the least.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah but you raised it needlessly above which was odd to say the least.


You've got that completely arse about tit, but no matter.

Meanwhile, Apple are now trying to nobble its rival in Japan:


> Apple is seeking to ban sales of some Samsung Electronics gadgets in Japan, accusing its rival of violating patents relating to the iPhone and iPad, the latest salvo in a series of patent battles between the two companies.
> 
> Apple has filed a suit with the Tokyo District Court seeking the suspension of sales of Galaxy S and its sequel S II smartphones and the Galaxy Tab 7 in Japan, according to sources close to the matter. The first hearing was held on Wednesday, the source said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teepee (Sep 9, 2011)

being the underdog for years really seems to have made them absolutely shameless in trying every dirty trick to stay on top.


----------



## Winot (Sep 9, 2011)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, people need to ask themselves

(a) do they want a patent system at all - if not, fine, but there are consequences;
(b) if they do, how do they then expect it not to be used

As noted above, the whole point of a patent system is to prevent sales of rival products.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2011)

Winot said:


> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, people need to ask themselves
> 
> (a) do they want a patent system at all - if not, fine, but there are consequences;
> (b) if they do, how do they then expect it not to be used
> ...


I think most people want a common sense patent system protecting and encouraging real innovation rather than what appears to be happening here, where stinking rich corporates can cynical manipulate the system and lay claim to daft vague generic features like 'curved corners' and ban rival products.


----------



## elbows (Sep 9, 2011)

I doubt you get patents for curved corners, don't patents need to cover functionality? Things such as curved corners would likely be covered by other design rights.


----------



## Winot (Sep 9, 2011)

elbows said:


> I doubt you get patents for curved corners, don't patents need to cover functionality? Things such as curved corners would likely be covered by other design rights.



Yes, I should have said "IP system". Quite right that shape/configuration is design right not patents (although, confusingly, the US calls them "design patents").


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2011)

elbows said:


> I doubt you get patents for curved corners, don't patents need to cover functionality? Things such as curved corners would likely be covered by other design rights.


Curved corners_ and_ icons, apparently.


> Apple said that Samsung's Galaxy S handset and Galaxy Tab tablet violated ten of its patents around the look and design of its iPhone and iPad.
> 
> Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design
> 
> ...


----------



## Winot (Sep 9, 2011)

editor said:


> I think most people want a common sense patent system protecting and encouraging real innovation rather than what appears to be happening here, where stinking rich corporates can cynical manipulate the system and lay claim to daft vague generic features like 'curved corners' and ban rival products.



I agree, no one wants that!  However, I think you are putting a bit of a tabloid spin on what's happening.

Suggest that we revisit this once the dust has settled and see what happens.  My prediction is that Apple's design will be found invalid.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2011)

Winot said:


> My prediction is that Apple's design will be found invalid.


If that proves to be true, then Samsung should be entitled to sue for vast amounts of damages to perhaps discourage future spurious, rival-nobbling legal actions reducing choice for consumers.


----------



## c01642 (Sep 9, 2011)

German court upholds injunction against Samsung

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/german-court-upholds-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1/


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2011)

c01642 said:


> German court upholds injunction against Samsung
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/german-court-upholds-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1/


As is often the case, the comments on Engadget prove to be more interesting/amusing than the actual article.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 9, 2011)

c01642 said:


> German court upholds injunction against Samsung
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/german-court-upholds-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1/



Yup and Apple are going after Samsung in Japan now I believe. Wouldn't surprise me if Samsung just dump Android and buy/license WebOS if this shit keeps up...


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yup and Apple are going after Samsung in Japan now I believe. Wouldn't surprise me if Samsung just dump Android and buy/license WebOS if this shit keeps up...


What makes you think that such a move would stop Apple's legal moves? Unless Samsung start sticking pointless knobs on tablets or making them in daft shapes, Apple's hugely dubious 'look and feel' claim would remain, no matter what platform the tablet is running.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 10, 2011)

editor said:


> What makes you think that such a move would stop Apple's legal moves? Unless Samsung start sticking pointless knobs on tablets or making them in daft shapes, Apple's hugely dubious 'look and feel' claim would remain, no matter what platform the tablet is running.



You obviously don't pay attention, I've said countless times that this is about Apple taking down their biggest threat which is Android, this is business plain and simple. I know in your blinkered Google gushing world view you find it hard to accept this reality but it exists nonetheless...


----------



## Cid (Sep 10, 2011)

I can't see them leaving the open handset alliance, design change would be more likely imo.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You obviously don't pay attention, I've said countless times that this is about Apple taking down their biggest threat which is Android, this is business plain and simple. I know in your blinkered Google gushing world view you find it hard to accept this reality but it exists nonetheless...


I'll ignore the inevitable ad hominem that sadly accompanies your every post at me these days and ask you this: seeing as Windows is predicted to be a massive success, why would Apple decide to abandon their current policy of trying to nobble competition through the courts and choose to ignore would be their next biggest threat?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 10, 2011)

Why did apple only go after Samsung first? Why not every other company that makes Android phones?

There's more than just simple "because they can" at work here.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 10, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Why did apple only go after Samsung first? Why not every other company that makes Android phones?
> 
> There's more than just simple "because they can" at work here.



Apple would probably be best placed to answer that...if I were to speculate I'd say that Samsung probably represent the weakest legal link in the Android chain, one that a case for patent violation could most easily be made and one company that sells a shed load of units too...?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Why did apple only go after Samsung first? Why not every other company that makes Android phones?
> 
> There's more than just simple "because they can" at work here.


Actually, they attacked HTC way back in early 2010, claiming patent violations for things like (wait for it) ""Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image."



> But what we do know is that Apple's specifically gone after HTC's Android devices, and it's organized its attack very carefully: it's gone before the ITC with a collection of older patents on very deep OS-level functionality, which traditionally would be considered stronger patents, and it's gone before the federal court with a different set of patents that include some very new claims on user interface features. Both courts have the ability to stop HTC from selling devices and issuing fines, but none of that is going to happen anytime soon.


http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2011)

Here's how bad the situation has got:



> 294 Patent Lawsuits Were Filed In August 2011; Mobile Handset Complaints Up 25 Percent Yearly
> 
> According to Lex Machina’s data, mobile handset lawsuits are up roughly 25 percent a year since 2006.  In fact, in August of 2011 alone, there were 294 patent lawsuits, 8 percent of which were mobile-related. Currently, Apple is involved in 97 open patent cases. Motorola Mobility is involved with 38 open patent cases.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2011)

And now this bullshit is coming to the UK   



> Apple has launched a lawsuit against Samsung in the UK, which marks the latest in a long line of court cases between the two electrical giants.
> 
> Apple filed the court order this week, according to ZDNet, which brings the total number of patent suits the companies have between them to 20.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-takes-samsung-to-the-uk-courts-1027061


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Why did apple only go after Samsung first? Why not every other company that makes Android phones?
> 
> There's more than just simple "because they can" at work here.



Here's a good article on the subject (the lawsuit wars at all levels of the mobile game)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ar-for-control-of-the-smartphone-platform.ars


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Here's a good article on the subject (the lawsuit wars at all levels of the mobile game)
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ar-for-control-of-the-smartphone-platform.ars


It makes some good points too:



> The value of app stores is reflected in Apple's crusade to claim trademark rights over the phrase APP STORE. This is a horizontal dispute: Apple wants to make other companies' app stores marginally less attractive by insisting that they have slightly less catchy names than Apple's own store. But the argument is both silly and legally weak. An app store is a store. That sells apps. That's true whether it sells iPhone apps or Android apps or webOS apps. Microsoft opposed Apple's attempt to register APP STORE as a trademark, and last month, Amazon won the right in federal court to continue using the phrase in the name of its Amazon Appstore for Android.(Apple has had more success in Germany.)...
> 
> Neither side comes out particularly well from this exchange. On the one hand, Google has a point about the low quality of software patents. And even if the patents are valid, the cynicism of buying up patents to put the squeeze on a rival is pretty ugly. A hypothetical Apple-Google lawsuit, say, would be a lawsuit against a company that didn't invent the technology at stake ... by a company that didn't invent it, either. On the other hand, Google had the chance to make offers and decided it wasn't worth the cash (even though the company has almost $40 billion burning a hole in its pocket). And when Drummond talked about "protection," he wasn't talking about the patents giving Google a defense from the guys with the baseball bats who bust your kneecaps if you don't pay up. No, he meant that Google wanted a baseball bat of its own so it could start busting kneecaps in revenge. Motorola's 17,000+ mobile-related patents are a $12 billion bat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Winot (Sep 15, 2011)

In case anyone missed it, Samsung are going after Apple in France. 

Love the idea that it's the dominance of IP lawyers that is to blame for this situation BTW.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2011)

Winot said:


> In case anyone missed it, Samsung are going after Apple in France.
> 
> Love the idea that it's the dominance of IP lawyers that is to blame for this situation BTW.


A key difference appears to be that in this case Samsung are not trying to get the sale of the Apple products banned right across Europe.

Mind you, sites like Engadget don't help by running hugely misleading 'comparison' photos (Apple did the same thing, so I guess that reflects the site's notorious bias).


----------



## Winot (Sep 15, 2011)

editor said:


> A key difference appears to be that in this case Samsung are not trying to get the sale of the Apple products banned right across Europe.
> 
> Mind you, sites like Engadget don't help by running hugely misleading 'comparison' photos (Apple did the same thing, so I guess that reflects the site's notorious bias).



Samsung's French action is apparently for patent infringement so it'll be about the way the iPhone works not hte way it looks.  So the comparison photos aren't really important here.

There's no such thing as a single European patent which can be enforced accross the whole of Europe in one action.  By contrast, there is a unitary European design right (protecting appearance), which is why Apple were able to go for a pan-European injunction.


----------



## Cid (Sep 15, 2011)

editor said:


> A key difference appears to be that in this case Samsung are not trying to get the sale of the Apple products banned right across Europe.
> 
> Mind you, sites like Engadget don't help by running hugely misleading 'comparison' photos (Apple did the same thing, so I guess that reflects the site's notorious bias).



Or yours.

I'm deeply confused as to why you can't see the similarities in the two devices, talking as a designer I'd be doing exactly the same thing as Apple. This has been upheld in a German court, we're not talking about a country where a few craftily placed backhanders can get you access to the judiciary, and it's not like Samsung's legal team is going to be any weaker than Apple's... this isn't about Samsung having to add knobs and wheels to their devices, I mean fuck on one of the earlier articles I actually had to look up the devices to work out which one was shown. I think they were on dodgy ground with the US trade dress one as Samsung branding is easily recognisable, but this is not the same thing.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2011)

Big respect to this little company for standing up to the bullying, especially when Apple outrageously escalated this to a criminal case.

This may well impact on Apple's case against Samsung too.

Here's Foss Patents' comments on the case:


> *Apple loses iPad design lawsuit against small Spanish tablet computer maker NT-K*
> 
> Talk about David defeating Goliath: a small Spanish tablet computer maker named Nuevas Tecnologías y Energías Catalá from the Valencia region has successfully defended its Android-based tablet computers (marketed under the label nt-k) in court and is now seeking damages from Apple for a temporary seizure of its products by Spanish customs. Furthermore, the Spaniards are pursuing an antitrust complaint against Apple, alleging abusive anticompetitive behavior.
> 
> What makes this is even more noteworthy is the fact that Apple asserted the same design-related right -- a so-called Community design -- with which it won two injunctions against Samsung in Germany (one related to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and another one related to the Galaxy Tab 7.7) but lost in the Netherlands (where an injunction was granted only against certain Samsung smartphones and based on a technical patent, not a design-related right).





> Considering that this was not a case of product piracy but just a dispute over whether or not Apple has exclusive design rights covering nt-k's Android-based products, I think it's absolutely outrageous that Apple tried to attack its rival under criminal law. Having a commercial dispute is one thing, but going down the criminal law avenue is totally unreasonable.
> 
> The Spanish company's blog suggests that other small companies got a similar treatment from Apple but gave in. nt-k, however, didn't want to be bullied and decided to defend itself vigorously. Another company doing so against Apple is a small German device maker named JAY-tech (I reported on that case in August)...
> 
> ...


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/apple-loses-ipad-design-lawsuit-against.html


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 3, 2011)

Not that it will make any difference to Apples bottom line, but I really hope they get taken to the cleaners over this one.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2011)

I've got a lot of respect for this little company. It must be intimidating enough to have such a massive, filthy rich corporation threatening you via the courts, but then finding yourselves being taken to the _criminal_ courts really is something else.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 3, 2011)

Some large damages will hopefully make apple rethink this strategy, certainly against smaller companies. They have plenty of other ways to compete well.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> Some large damages will hopefully make apple rethink this strategy, certainly against smaller companies. They have plenty of other ways to compete well.


Seeing as Apple stopped the company's entire shipment of tablets arriving in the country and tried to harass and discredit them through the courts, I'd say they should be in for a very sizeable payment. After all, Apple's dodgy actions could have cost them the entire company, and the jobs of all the employees.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2011)

Can't be arsed to start another thread on this, but it appears that Apple have just lost another court case, this time against Motorola.



> Apple knows what it's like to win injunctions against rivals. It won four of them against Samsung (two in Germany, one in the Netherlands and most recently one in Australia; all of them preliminary). Now it seems that Apple has just come out on the losing end of a patent infringement lawsuit. I have received a copy of what purports to be a default judgment by the Mannheim Regional Court barring Apple from selling in Germany -- the single largest market in Europe -- any mobile devices infringing on two Motorola Mobility patents and determining that Apple owes Motorola Mobility damages for past infringement since April 19, 2003.
> 
> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/motorola-mobility-apparently-won.html


Engadget article complete with entertaining user comments:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/04/german-court-grants-injunction-against-apple-for-infringement-of/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 5, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> Some large damages will hopefully make apple rethink this strategy, certainly against smaller companies. They have plenty of other ways to compete well.



You'd hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath tbh. Only two things change the course of a corporation:

Consumer actions
Government regulation


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2011)

Samsung are continuing to shove two fingers up at Apple by releasing a slightly different verion of the banned tablet and giving it a new name.


> In its intellectual property spat with Apple, Samsung proves resilient, perseverant, and courageous. If there ever was any doubt about those virtues (not on my part anyway), here's the latest example: the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is once again available in Germany, despite a preliminary injunction that Apple won in early August and the Dusseldorf Regional Court confirmed in September
> 
> Samsung has designed and slightly renamed the product (it's now called Galaxy Tab 10.1*N*), apparently in an attempt to steer clear of infringement ofApple's asserted Community design, a design-related intellectual property right...
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2011)

Or to put it a different way, Samsung are now being less stupid about the issue I've raised a few times, of copying too many aspects of the product, some quite unnecessarily, and recklessly leaving themselves open to this sort of thing. They should have made the device look a tiny bit more different in the first place, it wouldn't have taken much effort or have compromised the product for the user.

Rather sensibly I hear that Samsung also decided not to try to take an injunction out against Apple in South Korea, for fear of creating a PR own-goal in their home-country. Im not entirely sure if they are applying the same philosophy in other territories.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 16, 2011)

Yup Apple's tactics have taught Samsung a painful lesson in how not to rip off others. Hopefully this will be the start of this patent war drawing to a close...


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yup Apple's tactics have taught Samsung a painful lesson in how not to rip off others.


Well, that's _one way_ to interpret Apple's angle on this. I prefer to go along with the patent expert's analysis, myself.

This always make an interesting historical point:


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2011)

editor said:


> Well, that's _one way_ to interpret Apple's angle on this. I prefer to go along with the patent expert's analysis, myself.
> 
> This always make an interesting historical point:



Samsung went too far though with the style copying though, regardless of Apples approach to all these matters. The moment in one court where the judge challenged Samsungs legal team to identify which device the judge was holding was an iPad, and which was the Samsung, and one of them couldn't do it, was a pretty good sign that Samsung left themselves too open to risk on this front. My point does not extend to every aspect of all the legal squabbles though, only to the number of visible design aspects that Samsung copied far too blatantly.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 16, 2011)

It's an evidence based view. Samsung clearly ripped Apple off and payed the price for it. *shrugs*


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2011)

Some common sense at last:


> *Australia Appeals Judge Questions Fairness of Samsung Tablet Ban*
> An Australian appeals court judge questioned the fairness of a ruling that granted Apple Inc.’s request to ban the sale of the iPad2’s biggest rival in a legal dispute with Samsung Electronics Co. over patent infringement.
> 
> “The result looks terribly fair to Apple and not terribly fair to Samsung,” Federal Court Justice Lindsay Foster said today at a hearing in Sydney on Samsung’s appeal for the ban to be overturned.
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...questions-fairness-of-samsung-tablet-ban.html


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2011)

Apple set to be told to 'do one' in Germany, as they try to get another product blocked.   



> *Apple nears German court rebuff in row with Samsung*
> A German court rejected Apple's claims that Samsung Electronics' reworked tablet PC still looks like a copycat version of the iPad, in a preliminary assessment.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-apple-samsung-galaxy-idUSTRE7BL0JI20111222


----------



## Winot (Dec 22, 2011)

It's almost like the IP system is ... reacting sensibly or something.


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2012)

Apple told to fuck off again with their shitty, anti-competitive attempts to get rival products banned - this time by the Dutch appeals court.


> A court in The Hague, Netherlands, dismissed an appeal by Apple, its latest attempt to get Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from the country, according to legal blog Foss Patents. A lower court in The Hague had initially dismissed a similar request by Apple in August.
> 
> The ruling comes a week before a similar decision is expected in a German court over a ban that was initially placed on the Galaxy Tab, said Florian Mueller, who runs Foss Patents. He said the decision could remove the ban, dealing Apple yet another legal defeat...
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2012)

Apparently, it was both the 1994 'Kight Ridder' tablet and the 2002 HP TC1000 tablet that helped scupper Apple's dodgy claim.


> In 1994, the publisher Knight-Ridder produced and distributed a video that showed such a device with many of the elements embodied in Apple’s later D’889 patent application, including an overall rectangular shape with four evenly rounded corners, a flat clear surface on the front of the device, a rim surrounding the front surface, a substantially flat back panel that rounds up near the edges to form the rim around the front surface, and a thin form factor.
> 
> Apple failed to disclose this device to the PTO during the D’889 patent’s prosecution, even though Apple knew of its existence directly from Dr. Fidler, with whom Apple worked.
> http://paidcontent.org/article/419-...-likely-to-turn-on-1994-knight-ridder-tablet/


----------

