Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the injunction was lifted.
This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse. Before we know it Apple will have formed the OAAA (Only Apple Association of America) and be lobbying congress to force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.
But I think it seems a bit unreasonable to ban the sale of an entire device which is based on hundreds if not thousands of patents just because it MIGHT (keep in mind this case was not won but Apple, this was a preliminary injunction) infringe on one or two software patents.
edit: My point is that this IS a conversation about software patents and competition and not whether or not you are I think this is reasonable. If the system is broken and you, as a multi-billion company, don't take that competitive advantage someone else will.
edit: "If I don't take advantage, someone else will" is also known as mutually assured destruction. I liked the patent cold war better than what we're seeing now. Companies should shelve the nukes and go back to vying for customers with merits, not missiles.
The best patent is the one never enforced. "Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product" still stands.
Because what Samsung is doing with its FRAND patents is 100x worse than what Apple is doing.
People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.
I think most of the companies are not interested in a protracted legal battle with a partner many of them still rely on for licensing arrangements in other businesses. Microsoft is just playing "good cop" to Apple's existential "bad cop" threat. Doesn't mean they like paying tolls to Redmond.
And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)
I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.
My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
"Not getting sued" should not need to be a product.
> My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something.
As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place!
The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)
For the record: all my computers, equipped with 3g modems and touchscreens or not, running a variety of OSes, are running just fine with none of those issues.
Really?
I thought that was the fee for not using Linux.
(looks around for cover)
I might not have been so sympathetic to Apple in this regard if I hadn't been fooled by Samsung products myself. E.g., a few months back I was in a Costco and saw a new iPad on display. I found this surprising, as I wasn't aware that there was a new iPad. I picked up the iPad and fiddled with it for a minute. I found it confusing, because it was so much like the iPad I had at home, except that some things were different in a way that I didn't expect. After a minute, I finally realized that this wasn't an iPad at all, but rather a Samsung tablet that had been designed to mimic the iPad in many important details.
I also recall seeing a TV show in which someone was speaking on an iPhone, only it wasn't any model of iPhone that I had seen before. I figured that it must have been a prop iPhone as perhaps Apple hadn't wanted to pay for the product placement in this episode. I vaguely recalled Apple suing Samsung over design patents and so I Googled for a minute. Sure enough, the "prop iPhone" was a real Samsung phone!
You can't knock-off a Chanel handbag. Why should you be able to knock-off an iPad or an iPhone?
Anyone who claims that Samsung isn't intentionally stealing Apple's design for their own profit is being disingenuous. And anyone who claims that Samsung couldn't easily differentiate their design from Apple's design is also be disingenuous. Other Android phones and tablets are not such slavish copies, and this is why Apple is going after Samsung, rather than other phone and tablet manufacturers.
Your statement feels like a work of fiction.
As to not being able to tell the difference between iOS and Android, I've never used Android, so I couldn't say. I have seen my friends using their Android devices, and all I can say about that is that their devices have looked rather blocky and cartoonish to me. The Samsung home screen did not have the Android blocky cartoonishness to it--it was much more iOS-like.
As to your claims about how my post "feels", please take your feelings and place them somewhere appropriate.
That's uncalled for. I was being polite in my choice of words. Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality. We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
For starters, the aspect ratio of Samsung devices and Apple devices is completely different. Yes, both products have rounded corners. Exactly like any other every mobile device in the last 20 years, because otherwise they would tear your clothes. Yes, they are as flat as they can be: again, not suprising.
There is often only one natural, optimal way for a vendor to engineer a device using the components that can now be produced at full-scale. The reason Samsung and Apple products look so much alike, is because they contain pretty much the same components: Apple products are essentially Samsung products with an Apple logo slapped on them. From the screens, to the chipsets.
So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird: they have been designed for the exact same set of limitations. (the form factor of Samsung components)
Finally, fashion does exist, and it is not owned by whoever happens to set the trend. From high heels, to low cut jeans, that's not so much copying designs, as it is about market research and listening to your customers.
And the right to 'own' a design requires that design to be superfluous. The three adidas bars are protected. The nike logo is protected. But nobody can sell a white T-shirt, and claim that design their own.
You can own branding. Copying designs is illegal only when it actually leads to consumer confusion, as an extension of trademarks. Apple isn't trying to own its design: it trying to own the whole concept of minimalism. That's function over form: and I personally love that, but you can't expect society to give any company a monopoly on minimalism.
Everybody is allowed to produce a white T-shirt. But only one company is allowed to put an apple on the back of that shirt.
And I wasn't? You effectively called me a liar, and yet I didn't tell you to fsck off. I gave you every choice about other uses for your thinly veiled accusation.
> Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality.
I-A-N-A-L
F-U
>We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
If you say so. I guess I'm just stupid compared to strangers from the street, then?
> So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird
This is the type of thing a lawyer would write to be able to make a case in front of a jury. Do you work for Samsung? It feels to me like you are a paid shill for them, protecting their reputation on the internet.
Let me spell it out for you: The similarity between the iPad and the Samsung tablet was not accidental. The Samsung device was a slavish copy. This fact is well-proven by the fact that there are plenty of other tablets out there and none of the others are readily confusable with an iPad.
I don't see how anyone can support this business model. If they were an honest company, they would market their tablet on its own merits, not on how much they can cause brand confusion, or on how closely they can mimic another company's design.
I'm not interested in defending Samsung here, but I do agree with the posters upthread that Apple's actions do show a certain amount of insecurity. Again - did Mercedes-Benz or Jaguar say anything about the Amanti?
On other other hand, some cars are made to look "just like every other car". Clearly for the cars that are doing this, there is nothing to sue about.
Do you think the Jaguar S-type and the Mercedes-Benz E-class are among the cars made to look just like every other car?
The Mercedes is not very distinctive to my eye, other than the prominent round Mercedes ornament on the hood. If another car company were to make a luxurious-looking car with a round peace-sign ornament, for instance, on its hood, then Mercedes should sue.
As to whether car companies sue each other in practice, I have no idea. I'm sure they would, however, if they felt that (1) another car company were making a slavish copy of their design, (2) they had a good chance of winning the court case, and (3) the suit wouldn't somehow hurt their image too much.
I'll admit I'm not clear on US law, but aren't there some clothing makers who 'take inspiration' from high-end designer pieces and do very similar designs for the mass market? As long as they aren't labeled incorrectly, they don't seem to get into trouble.
(Not that this applies to this case, since I highly doubt most people would mistake Samsung phones for iPhones, not after a minute or two of using them. You yourself realised the devices weren't iOS in no time. In every mobile shop I walk into here, there are big Samsung signs and iPhone/iPad signs at the appropriate counters, and basically everyone knows what they're getting.)
Why should the icon layout or organisation of a mobile phone OS be protectable in the first place? All the old phones of yesteryear had icon menus as well. Or is sliding-screen navigation protected as well?
> I'm not particularly sympathetic to many kinds of patents that are being enforced these days, but Samsung is clearly trying to make slavish copies of Apple products, and Apple certainly is entitled to defend themselves against this.
Are you conflating patents with copyrighted design here? And how does the Galaxy Nexus 'slavishly' look or feel like an iPhone?
People who disagree with this, I guess, must somehow feel that design is a much easier task than writing software, and therefore design should be free. (Either that or you think that all software should be free too, but then we'll have to agree to disagree.) The reality of the matter is that good design is very difficult and very expensive. Why should Apple go to all the expense of developing a great design, just to have it stolen?
Re legal principles, there are such a thing as design patents, in addition to look-and-feel copyrights, though I have no opinion on their legal merits in general. As to how Apple will progress with this legal battle, I'm sure they will use any and all legal tactics that they believe will be effective. If one asserts that they might set some bad precedent in doing so, for all I know that may very well be the case. If it turns out this way, then Samsung is equally to blame for stealing Apple's design work.
Regarding the Nexus, I can't say. The Samsung phone I saw in a TV show that clearly IS a slavish copy is this one, or one very similar.
http://goo.gl/dJazg
I'm not sure that sole rights to a design is a moral principle. Imitating is the very basis of most design anyway - we take ideas from places and things we've seen and build upon them. If you acknowledge that designs don't occur in a vacuum, that they don't spring purely from the mind of the designer without outside influence, then maybe it's not morally wrong to take design elements from anything else, even a competing product. (The question of degree, however, is another matter.)
Product differentiation is heavily emphasised in marketing courses because it offers a competitive advantage over similarity. But that doesn't imply products need be differentiated in the first place.
Basically, IMO, companies can rail all they want about their designs being imitated, but the law shouldn't stop the appropriation of design elements -- except when it crosses the line into fake products, i.e. when there is intent to trick consumers into thinking a fake is the real thing. Taking the (perceived) pleasing aspects of a design should not be illegal.
I don't know, if it were a big company imitating the design of a small but up-and-coming rival, I would be more sympathetic to the small company, and maybe my stance would be different. But 'copying' design is not something that seems intrinsically wrong to me. I take design elements from other websites when I work on my project, and I wouldn't be able to blame another website if it took elements from me. If it imitated my design wholesale, I'd feel bemused and flattered, maybe angry if they were beating me at my own game, but I'd accept it as part of the game.
In this case, the Samsung phones I've had experience with have not looked like my iPhone 3GS, so I cannot agree that they slavishly imitate Apple's designs. The Galaxy S you linked does look similar, but the other Samsung phones I've seen do not (unless you consider rectangles with rounded corners to be sufficiently similar).
The other day, I stuck a spare SIM into a 1st gen iPhone 8GB running iOS 3.1.2. Even on EDGE, the thing smokes my iPhone 3GS on iOS 5.1.1 bringing up the Maps program using 3G at the same location. It's positively slick, responsive, and just beautiful.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of bloat in both iOS and OS X now. My Macbook Pro running Lion is way slower than when it was running Snow Leopard, and the thing has an SSD! I've even disabled noatime and swap. That makes my machine faster, but it's still slower than it was.
Isn't the quality of Apple's design part of the quality of their product? If other companies can copy Apple's design, then other companies can just copy a significant part of Apple's quality without putting in any of the effort and cost that Apple put into their design.
Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products? I.e., why not let other companies just make perfect knock-offs down to the circuit board level? And while we're at it, they should just be able to copy Apple's software too?
In that case, companies should compete on nothing other than their ability to manufacture commodities for as cheaply as possible.
Personally, I find the attitude that design should be free, while everything else should be IP, to be highly insulting to design experts and their expertise.
If a competing product has particular features, I do think it should be permissible to re-create those features in your own product. That's the reason why many folks here are against software patents - because the idea behind a feature should not be protected if a competitor can produce the same effect with its own engineering.
> In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?
They can't, though, because they wouldn't have access to those aspects. Design and features are two things that are publicly exposed to the world, and personally I think you should be able to implement features your competitors have. Similarly, while I wouldn't copy a design wholesale, I don't think it should be wrong to take elements from others' designs.
1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes.
2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run. They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.
While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it, so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab (although I have heard it is quite good).
“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs in 2010.
And to Eric Schmidt regarding patent licensing: ”I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists. You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how 'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic.
We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.
Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time definitely didn't exist on any OS.
If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results published somewhere.
On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover any search across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a monopoly?
If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?
It may not have existed on mobile but one could argue that much of it did already exist on the desktop, bringing similar functionality to a mobile is not especially innovative in my opinion, its a feature at best. Integrating things is not innovative either.
I would love to see the fireworks of Apple taking Google to court on search patent infringement.
The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of this kind of acts is just the same.
If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.
As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency.
Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).
Governments don't send notices like this. Lawyers do. Which is exactly what happened in this situation.
They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable margin.
Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy grail of user-experience.
They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if they don't come to their senses really soon now.
Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses that dared to use an apple as its logo.
If Apple's trademark was restricted to the context of computing (likely), then suing anyone who dared using an Appple in their logo was beyond the score of necessary protection.
In particular, they had quite a few disagreements with Apple Records about doing audio. Even though more or less the only people who know Apple Corps/Records think "of the Beatles' records", they took action against Apple even as early as 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)
I think those lawsuits may have affected company culture at Apple Computer, now Apple Inc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-ta...
To bring any new product to market inevitably requires a lot of R&D, development expenses, and a certain amount of risk-taking, hoping you really are inventing the next great thing.
Once a product is proven to be successful it is relatively simple for a competitor to attempt to copy or duplicate the most popular facets of that device. Because they did not have to spend resources on the same development and market testing, it stands to reason that the copy product could also be sold much more cheaply than the original, giving the competitive product a significant cost advantage (or giving the company creating the product a higher profit margin, or both).
I'm not saying anything specific about Apple or Samsung in this case, but product superiority alone is rarely the competition killer you appear to make it out to be.
I think Apple is wrong (and a little short-sighted) here, but I don't think this puts them on the same level as Lodsys or IV.
But Samsung, HTC, Google etc have. Hence the ITC/EU investigation of those companies.
[disclosure: I'm long AAPL]
So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on, well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom.
They're doing both, and it's a very slippery slope if they send the message that they are not willing to protect their patents.
I do agree, though, that it is a shame all of this effort is put into legal battles for what is usually minimal benefit. And that goes for the legal system in general.
And the other half get significantly strengthened.
I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a court.
The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged:
1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the test, just the method of testing.)
2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is also narrowed.
3) The court can let the patent stand as-is.
The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger reasons to work around the patent.
So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very temporary edge in the marketplace.
Courtrooms and patents are just another tool big corporations use to compete. Apple is particularly aggressive as is Microsoft but many companies do this. Motorola comes to mind and Nokia as well.
This needs to be fixed at the congressional level but good luck with that. Congress thinks the current patent system is pretty much perfect. Hopefully, with people like Posner finally speaking out, this changes
This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.
Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.
I would be just as surprised if you could patent a shade of green as if you could patent the meaning of a test result.
And it is pretty common to trademark colours.
The point is that if Apple was suing under trademarks they would have done things differently, but don't appear to be doing so, probably because patents have wider protections than trademarks do.
You can trademark a color in a certain context, but I doubt you can trademark the color and then enforce general ownership rights to it.
After all even in more specific contexts, I seem to remember 'Gel Cel' being impermissibly generic as a trademark.
As for the box, I like Samsung's. All apple did was plaster a picture of the iPad on the front of a box.
Quick side by side job-
Tab10 vs iPad: http://i.imgur.com/3jnEf.png
Galaxy Nexus vs iPhone: http://i.imgur.com/eZAyj.png
You are free to choose which you think looks "better" but the design is not even similar. One is made of glass of and aluminum, the other of glass and plastic. The differences between the the Galaxy Nexus and the 4s is even more striking. My comparison doesn't go a good job of showing the scale but they are no where near the same size either.
If you really want to compare old and completely unrelated devices, have a look at this picture that made its rounds on Google+ during the #boycottapple time: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nMgzXpDyNhA/Ta3iBWUo3bI/AAAAAAAAM1...
Here is the "original" Galaxy Tab.
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/...
Unrelated, who uses a tablet from 10 ft away anyway?
The simple fact is this: Apple can't demonstrate 10, let alone any meaningful number of people who accidentally bought a Galaxy when they meant to pick up an iPad/iPhone.
It doesn't happen.
Exhibit A, a Scott toilet paper roll:
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4937842907021398&pid=1.5
Exhibit B, a Charmin toilet paper roll:
http://www.coloredtoiletpaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01...
Also, I usually like to shop for rolls by unpackaging them, placing them side by side, stepping back 20 meters and just staring at them from the other side of the store, and now I was totally confused as to which was which. I don't understand why more people aren't up in arms about this. Scott clearly had the intent to copy Charmin's paper-around-roll design philosophy. The world needs more patents to prevent this.
http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus
I don't know if is the new one or not: http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...
"Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3, the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction."
The Verge probably makes this part more clear:
"According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the Galaxy Nexus was stayed."
- http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-gal...