Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Europe (Apple wins injunction)
thinq.co.uk
thinq.co.uk
No patent or trademark is the culprit but rather the design (as in: look) of the enclosure. Above article does link to this document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-00018160...
That’s called a community design, it’s an EU thing, here is the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design
This article deals a bit more with community designs and especially the concept of the “informed user” that is somewhat central to them: http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1392Newsle...
Here are images of the current iPad: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
Here are images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/spec....
(My personal opinion? It seems absurd to me that you can protect something vague like this. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad seem sufficiently different to me as to not cause consumer confusion.)
So I guess only Apple can make a thin tablet. Any other one will be an infringement...
Can Ssamsung sue all other TV makers since they are all rectangular, with a bezel, and is flat? They all look too similar to Samsung TVs!
I'm sure you could hire a creative team to come up with 100 iterations of tablets and icons (as I'm sure Apple did) that would look nothing like an iPad. In light of those 100 the similarities would look more apparent than ever.
As it is, my point regarding the level of similarity between the Tab and iPad still holds--it's not simply a matter of shape, size, and weight; even if it were, where does the assumption come from that Apple's form factor for the iPad was obvious?
As for obviousness, let me submit exhibit A, used in 1994: http://de.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Datei:Plan_des_Arboretums.jp...
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn’t resemble an iPad to me. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far.
The obscure device you found is on the left. iPad which is an actual product, is in the middle. Samsung's Tab is on the right. The iPad and Tab are practically identical.
The left two are only similar in that they are both rectangular. The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all different.
You can't argue a:b :: b:c.
Anyway, I don’t agree and since we all don’t have any empirical results – only different opinions – we might as well stop here. I only fear that the courts and the politicians who wrote the law also didn’t have any empirical results.
Maybe you ought to be specific on what is so non-obvious about the iPad, because I have a feeling you are simply have not been made aware or fail to recognize previous art.
So I guess the standard here is whether or not someone would reasonably be fooled into thinking a Galaxy Tab was an iPad. Honestly, it seems reasonable to me. The Samsung looks like a clone.
Now, the law is ridiculous in the face of the fact that the devices aren't compatible. Treating the box that the things come in as the defining aspect that needs protection instead of the very different software contained therein is just insane. But apparently it's the law, and frankly it seems to have been applied correctly if I understand it right.
If it was thought this injunction was just and applied correctly, I don't think we'd be arguing.
[1] http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/RCD/regulati...
The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all the same.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is very generic and the interface is pure honeycomb.
Personally, I think there's some reasonable situations in which a company can say "you're trying to copy us to confuse customers and this is a real problem." This isn't one of those situations, though.
Who is this a "problem" for? The multi-national corporation looking for a legal monopoly, or the consumer? Are consumers do dumb they won't notice that their tablet says SAMSUNG instead of APPLE? Doubt it.
I'm pretty certain that I said this isn't one of those situations.
Calling out copying to cut the copier down to size is one thing... it's about giving credit where credit was due. But suing a company into submission is a whole other bag.
I think Apple is being unethical here. They've made great contributions to tech, but we all are standing on the shoulders of not just giants, but millions of tiny innovators who've contributed their work along the way.
I mean... decent chunks of Apple's software are not just inspired, but are literally copied, as in "cp -r konqueror/src/engine webkit/src".
Congratulations, you've violated an Apple patent. Other fun tidbits from their collection:
* A mobile device with rounded corners
* Having a picture of a phone as a phone icon
* Having a picture of a gear for a settings icon
* Interactive widgets
If you make a phone with a distinctive design and patent that design, you list out the many features that comprise that design. You do not have a patent on every single one of those features. If someone copies a few of many features they certainly don't violate your patent. OTOH if they copy almost all of them they almost certainly do.
Where that line is varies and I don't know if Samsung is over the line but it's pretty clear that they are way closer to the line then any other major manufacturer.
And as for who this benefits, I'd suggest that HTC, Motorola and other Android vendors will benefit just as much or moreso then Apple.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=dLnlAAAAEBAJ&dq=7...
I literally laughed as I read through some of them, because I've definitely unknowingly violated many. It's impossible not to step on the toes of overly broad software patents.
The word "mobile" does not appear anywhere within it. In fact, Apple's implementation example is a Power Macintosh. If you consider that any sort of mobile device... well, your back is a lot stronger than mine at the very least.
However this may be a wake up call for Samsung - it is hard not to see their products as being influenced by Apple without any uniqueness to balance the experience. Motorola's product experience for example has a certain Motorola culture in it and doesn't feel anything like Apple. Likewise for HTC.
This may not justify Apple suing them - but in my mind being a copy without it's own unique traits is the worst thing that could happen to a brand. (Everyone copies but successful brands retain their uniqueness.)
I don't really know much of the background surrounding "community design rights", but I really think that this is a slippery slope to head down.
Competitors should do battle in the free market - not in the court systems.
Let consumers sort out which is the better product. They have no problems doing this without the aid of an injunction.
This stifling of competition via the court system is just another avenue to stagnate progress within the electronics industry.
It is sad for Samsung that sales of the Tab are being blocked while the court case is settled, but were they really expecting so many sales that this will “severely harm the company's financial outlook?” I don’t see the Tab as a bet-the-company move for Samsung, this is probably more of an embarassment and inconvenience than a fatal blow.
Like you said, Samsung's tablets aren't really selling that well (more were returned last month than sold, I heard), so it's not going to be a significant blow to them, financially.
Now Samsung's failure in the tablet space is going to be big bad Apple's bullying fault, and Samsung will play the role of the martyr. Samsung were failing anyways, but now it's Apple's fault.
The only way Apple wins here is if this prevents other players from imitating them.
Isn't the Apple brand worth 154bn or so? If you think about it: That is the total premium that people are willing to pay beyond the actual "value" (i.e. an equivalent product of a competitor) just because they are buying an Apple product.
They do not have any shame in denying a developer his application on false grounds and then copying it over a few iterations later. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/40465/apple-allegedly-copies...
They want to copy notification system from Android. At the same time they want to sue Android for copying context menu.
Now they want to sue other devices because they are rectangular in shape. If this is Apple then I will prefer an Apple free world.
According to Nielsen's most recent survey, 50% of the people buying Android phones are doing it out of active dislike of Apple as a company. Expect this number to grow as the public sees more products blocked like this.
http://www.buzzom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Android-vs-...
Clearly these are all traits only for Apple and an iPad to use. Clearly Apple copied these traits just like how Android copied everything of iPhone.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
sarcastic rant
I don't know what it would mean fiscally for Samsung but I would think they have some leverage in the "Well, if you want to be that way about it" department. Apple may stop getting priority consideration for parts orders over other companies. Also Samsung's product range is wide enough they could easily pull the same move against several of Apple's other products like monitors.
HTC's tablet is also under ITC's investigation, initiated by Apple.
Except the A5 SOC nothing Samsung makes for Apple is unique enough. And TSMC is actively testing mass producing Apple's IC.
BTW: Apple's utility model of essentially a giant iPod touch is ridiculously hilarious.
The injunction comes as the latest blow in a tit-for-tat legal war between the two companies, who have otherwise enjoyed a solid working relationship: Samsung produces many of the components used in both the iPhone and the iPad, the design of which it stands accused of copying.
This is the same type of dynamic that led to the falling out between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, when Schmidt, as a board member of Apple, used his inside knowledge of iOS to radically change Android's UI and functionality to compete directly against Apple.
Likewise, this reminds us of Steve Jobs showing Bill Gates the Mac GUI, and then finding out that Gates used that knowledge to revamp the Windows UI to directly compete against the Mac.
Apple has a problem in that it seemingly cannot partner with anyone without those companies then turning around and using their knowledge of Apple's software and design to compete directly against them in the same space.
Samsung's TouchWiz interface, at least on the phones, could easily be mistaken for Apple's interface in iOS as well, whereas HTC and Motorola's phones can't really.
People have thought my really chunky viewsonic g-tablet was an ipad: http://www.viewsonic.com/gtablet/ and it is no where close.
That would suggest that Apple is correct, wouldn't it?
There are standard shapes and sizes for a lot of technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
You may not have said so explicitly, but it is hanging out there, on the broad side of your argument.
Making a "copy" (or a real 1:1 copy, for that matter) itself doesn't add any value. Creating a design is an effort that is valuable itself (somebody might pay the designer) but copying a finished design or creating not-so-derivative works is an infinitesimally small effort. And no effort means no value. A copy of a design is worthless.
Conversely, Samsung still has to actually manufacture their tablets: that's a undisputable effort spent and that does create value. Sure their tablets might look same-ish (there aren't that many fundamental designs for a tablet computer) but they haven't created any value in their design. At best Apple should just be flattered to see competitors imitating their looks; however, in no sensible world Apple shouldn't have a say what other companies or people can spend their time and effort in.
Design is not property: there's no "intellectual property". Every time we try to treat mental works as property we fail majestetically, but then try to cough it up and cry for even stricter copyright restrictions.
On the other hand, I think this is one of those things, which have brought down Apple time and time again in the past, from the pinnacles of success to being competitively obsolete, mainly due to its inability to adapt to the changing market dynamics.
The press you are reading seems to be exceedingly bad at its job.
But now, considering USA and Europe... How much did Apple /what/ to make it happen?
P.S. Meanwhile you can still buy one in Russia, and is the ban stays I think those would go really cheap.
Apple is often supply-side constrained. So they could cut Samsung out the mix, but this just makes Apple more vulnerable to supply shortages.
Furthermore, by selecting their way out of one of the biggest screen, CPU, and memory manufacturers in the world and probably having to fund new factories for smaller manufacturers -- this volume is open up to other companies. The end result is cheaper components for Samsung mobile, HTC, Sony, LG, etc...