Apple Wins Permanent Ban on German Sales of Samsung Tablet | Hacker News Reader

Apple Wins Permanent Ban on German Sales of Samsung Tablet

pcworld.com

27 pointseren-tantekin47 comments

Just a quick note (IANAL, but I live in Germany): A district court is a rather low court ("Landgericht" in german, "Amtsgericht" would be lower, but they don't handle such cases). Samsungs next step probably will be to appeal this case at the "Oberlandesgericht". If they also loose there they can appeal the case at the BGH ("Bundesgerichtshof"), which is the highest german court for such court cases (the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" would be a higher court, but only handles matters of constitution). BGH decisions are usually final (ignoring appeals to EU courts).

So, long story short: This is a problem for Samsung, but at the moment nothing is "permanent".

> ignoring appeals to EU courts

Won't this be relevant for an issue of international trade?

Beyond that, perhaps even WTO appeals would need to be considered...

I think both cases (EU courts/WTO) are relevant but my knowledge of appeals to EU or WTO is shaky, so I cannot comment on this. Maybe someone else can help us out?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court in the EU for matters covered by EU laws - if there is a relevant law then presumably the case could get appealed all the way up to the ECJ.

Not sure about the WTO - wouldn't South Korea have to take on Samsung's case there against Germany?

That is correct, only disputes between countries are settled to WTO law. German courts and the ECJ do not apply WTO law.

The highest court the case would likely reach is the BGH. The EU courts aren't really courts of appeals, but concern the interpretation of EU directives etc. If there was an unclear EU directive in this case, the LG should have sent the case straight to the EuGH.

Nevertheless even the decision of the LG itself isn't final, but it concerns a "preliminary injunction". However in cases like these, it is unlikely the end result would be different.

Again a misleading Headline for klicks.

The subject was an injunction, i don't know how the author comes to the conclusion of a permanent ban. This is just a prequel to the real trial.

The judge's justification here sounds flimsy at best. Both tablets are "minimalist and modern" with "flat screens and round edges"? So Samsung can only make archaically designed tablets, if possible with a curved screen?

And then: "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer," Brueckner-Hoffmann explained, "other designs are possible."

I'm not a lawyer, so I might get laughed out here, but this just seems like a ridiculous claim. Other designs are possible, that much is true. You can make a car with 5 wheels and the engine in the passenger's seat too, doesn't mean there's going to be a market for it. My common sense might be too common, but I hope this gets thrown out at higher levels of the court.

Edit: To clarify, I own neither, and I am not interested in either, I just found the situation too absurd not to chime in.

it appears, having one or less buttons on a tablet is patented by apple. hopefully samsung will add at least two buttons on galaxy tab 7.7 and stop copying apple.

From what I remember, tablets before the iPad looked rather different[1]. The full glass/plastic front hadn’t really been tried. Early [Apple tablet mockups[1][2] based on the iPod touch, though close, lacked the thick black border and the now iconic home screen. Those features are now considered obvious, but clearly, they really weren’t.

1: http://i.eho.st/pj6inev7.jpg, 2: http://i.eho.st/pjmwl2m3.jpg, 3: http://i.eho.st/pjlqdsyx.jpg

So does that mean Apple now has a monopoly on capacitive tablets with slim bodies? It's still ridiculous when you think about it. That's how competition happens in a given market - by building similar features. Apple does it, too.

It's sad that the word 'iconic' now means 'full of icons'...

And Apple takes another PR hit. It's like they want us to hate them.

Like the article posted here the other day said "I want a MacBook Air not made by Apple". I think the Macbook Air looks sexy, but no way I'm funnelling money into an organisation this hellbent on taking away my choices.

Here's hoping Apple and it's power-crazy, trigger-happy lawyers are a short-lived phenomenon which goes away when people stop buying their products as a protest.

Unfortunately I think that you've been misled by the high-profile nature of all-things-Apple: these patent suits are common practice and as I understand it par for the course in the industry but because of Apple's popularity (in the media) these cases involving Apple are put under a spotlight. Don't confuse this with Apple somehow being an (evil) exception to natural conduct in the industry. Note also that Samsung has infringment suits against Apple. And of course there are many other cases not related to Apple that involve design infringement. This is how the game is played, for better or worse. I don't think you'll find a major company out there that doesn't concern itself with patents and legal action against its competitors when it feels it may have the grounds to do so.

Edit: Hm, I don't want to speak too quickly here, but after looking at your profile I'm guessing that you already have a strong opinion about Apple that I'm not likely to sway. So if you've made up your mind, fair enough. No sense in arguing about it. I just thought I would provide a counterpoint to what seems to be a common misconception about these suits.

It seems to me that most of the other infringement suits amount to a shakedown: "you're using our IP; pay us". Is there any company other than Apple that's using IP claims to force other products off of the market entirely?

Patent suits are all too common a practice, I agree, but it has become quite clear over the past year that Apple is going well beyond the pack in their use of patents to shut out competitors. This injunction isn't a shakedown, but an attempt to deny a competitor the right to participate in the market.

Apple's most high profile product launch in recent memory - the iPhone 4 - was a borderline PR disaster (antennagate, nasty Consumer Reports recommendations, suing Gizmodo)... and it's arguably their most successful product yet, still outselling everyone 15 months after launch. Argue the legal/moral merits all you want, but this doesn't even register in terms of Apple's public image.

Hasn't things been always like this? People would complain that Macs were too expensive, wouldn't run most apps/games, that the iPod had DRM, that the iPhone had no SDK, that you had to code only in Obj-C (section 3.3.1, dropped).

In the past, people would try to come up with arguments as to why Windows is better, and ran more games. Today it's all about Android.

It really makes me cringe that some people buy Android because it's "not Apple" rather than because there's amazing Android devices out there.

(Disclaimer: I own an iPad, a Xoom and some Macs)

Wow. Apple probably should not have won this one. But I can't help but compare to laptops. Lenovo, Apple,Sony, Dell. All have unique styles. They are all producing different looking cuboid electronics.

Samsung in comparison just looks lazy.

The important thing is not whether Apple should or shouldn't have won, but that they did. A court of law, as biased as it may be, has concluded that Apple’s complaint has merit. And now that may serve as precedent for Apple to use in other jurisdictions. Samsung are getting deeper into the crapper.

You are 100% right, but Apple has seen the last of my purchases. Not that they could care one bit but this kind of lawsuit is utterly ridiculous in my opinion, which may not be as powerful as the German courts but it counts for something.

Apple has won this battle, here's to hoping they will lose the war.

Imagine if every car manufacturer would have to come up with a new user interface for the basics of the vehicle, if having front, rear and side windows would somehow be considered something that you could have the rights to.

>>if every car manufacturer would have to come up with a new user interface for the basics of the vehicle, if having front, rear and side windows would somehow be considered something that you could have the rights to.

120 years ago, it might have been...

Also, xPads before Apple looked different. The same with phones compared to iPhone.

The good part is that Samsung might start hiring designers and get ambitions in that area, too.

Disclaimer: I just bought a Ubuntu laptop instead of a Mac, but might buy another Mac next time. (And I love my iPad.)

>The same with phones compared to iPhone.

Except, of course, for that phone reveled before the iPhone that had the same basic style. It was a style that the industry was headed towards anyway, apple just helped the momentum.

Reference please?

(You aren't talking about that Samsung phone which were announced before the iPhone but not shown until a good while after the iPhone was released?)

http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable... on December 15, 2006.

While the design doesn't necessarily predate the iPhone, it was at least developed concurrently, supporting the thesis of industry heading that way.

Cool, new to me. I note that the Wikipedia page says LG muttered about suing Apple over the iPhone. :-)

Do you think that BMW wouldn't sue Volvo if they built a car that looked identical on the outside, regardless of what's on the inside?

Brands each have a signature look. Sure, when there are frivolous patents that are a poison on the industry, but this is about whether Samsung crossed the line in how deceptively close their tabs look to an iPad. The German court seems to think they did. And I bet they did more analysis than most of us.

Try this: just look at the side of a bunch of cars, if you can tell them apart you've got a better eye for this than I do, but ever since the 'windtunnel' took over as a designer I am having a harder and harder time telling cars apart. Plenty of brands have caught on to this and actually share 90%+ of the basic design of the car and concentrate on the interior to differentiate the brands. The biggest difference on the outside is the logo on the hood.

Once physics and usability enter in to the design process the constraints can be such that there will be fewer and fewer options and room to play without impacting those in a negative way.

Design is always a compromise. By going for a minimalist design you remove all of that room so any minimalist design for a device will likely be very much like every other minimalist design.

You can always spot the BMW by the Hofmeister Kink. If Volvo copied that, I bet BMW'd sue.

How does that impact functionality?

? This lawsuit is not about functionality at all. It’s purely about looks, it’s about a design patent.

My point is that once you take away all design and go for minimalist that you can't change it much beyond that without impacting functionality.

The Hofmeister kind is an addition that does not impact functionality, it is the opposite of going for something minimalist. It is a design component specifically added as a signature.

Now if Apple had added a feature that is not relevant to functionality instead of removing a whole pile of stuff that was not relevant and someone copied that particular element they'd have a case imo. As it stands all they've done is taken the device to its logical conclusion. That should not be a protectable configuration.

Replace the word "car" with "wheel" to more realistically compare with the iPad functional design and you'll spot an awful lot of alloy wheel designs that untrained observers will be able to distinguish only by the badge.

So, um.

iPad: aluminium back, aluminium stretching out to create a visible border around the front of the device. Prominent single physical button on front of the device. 4:3 form factor.

Galaxy Tab: black textured plastic (?) back, front of the device pure black. No physical buttons on the front. 16:10 form factor.

But sure, identical on the outside...

thin device with a touchscreen is not a concept invented by apple. neither is thin device with a touchscreen that has rounded corners.

http://twitpic.com/67ykpa

nice argument, although a little manipulative and misleading. maybe one could fool the german court with this. but of course these were not the only tablets before ipad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Tab...

remove the physical keyboard and replace it with a soft keyboard provided by the os. voila! you've got an ipad!

by the way did you know hp's iPaq precedes iPad? aren't these two names are dangerously similar? they both have rounded corners.

Relevant to note that the keyboard here was a detatchable dock.. so its 'default' form was closer to the ipad.

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2003/06/02/the_digital_writin...

-2003.

http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg

A ridiculous game to play, don't you think?

So, iPad is not looking as previous tablets, and not all recent tablets look like iPad.

Ridiculous indeed.

People think that Apple did a lot of things on the iPad, but all they did was removing the pen, removing some useless physical buttons, using a tailored touch-oriented OS instead of adapting one from desktop computers, bootstrapping this operating system on years of success of the one for phones, using a single sheet of glass instead of plastic screen + plastic bezel, using the internet for app and media distribution, cutting corners to provide a midrange-laptop instead of costing an arm or a leg...

Don't forget how much they disappointed their geek fan base when they announced that their tablet was just a "bigger iPhone" instead of a "smaller iOS". And that's where Android wins: Android managed to actually change the opinions of geeks.

Seriously, Apple did some breakthrough changes. Android follows suit. Those lawsuits might piss you off, but give credit where credit is due.

All this forgets technical progress that allows for slimmer tablets.

plus I suspect that SSDs and similar non-mechanical parts means you no longer need to worry so much about drop damages, so you can remove all the rubber bumpers and get a cleaner look.

Non-English speaking Europe generally has the civil law system as opposed to common law and doesn't use precedents except in the most ambiguous cases where precedent can be used as guidance for interpreting the law. Precedent alone cannot be used to make a decision and it cannot contradict the law. Judges also have much less freedom in their interpretations of the law.

Just a quick clarification: this ban is not about patents, at all. It is only based on a registered "design patent" (Geschmacksmuster), which is wholly different from regular patents and protects specifically the aesthetics of a product (design, colour, form) - which is why the decision sounds flimsy at times, because they had to compare aesthetics.

Oh well, I am always looking for excuses to drive to the Netherlands anyway. Sheiß Apple

At Asus they are now toasting champagne.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com