Place your bets
what are the odds that Justice Annabelle Bennett has an iphone?
Cultists should declare an interest.
Samsung’s Galaxy 10.1 has been blocked in another jurisdiction, with the Federal Court of Australia granting an interim injunction against the sale of the device down under. In a decision which Samsung had previously warned would devastate its sales in the Christmas period, Justice Annabelle Bennett decided today (October 13) …
This is an "interim injunction" - which basically means that the court isn't entirely sure that there's a case here, but they've taken the decision to block sales until the whole case can be presented.
Either way, it's a massive win for Apple, even if the court eventually decides that Samsung have breached anything legally.
Do we even know exactly what Apple's accused them of breaching? Last I heard almost all of the "patent" disputes were thrown out and it was just some copyright stuff around the style of the device.
It would be madness for Samsung to lose because of the "grid of icons" issue, considering that this is an Android construct that every other Android device uses (and not even as the Home screen as they original said). Plus, Win3.1 had such grids in Program Manager, and I'm sure 100s of other pieces of software of yore.
the german ruling doesn't cover the EU, the preliminary ruling did, but then Samsung were able to get it reduced to just Germany. This was a technical ruling,
The EU-wide ruling is from the court in the Netherlands.
... heaven forfend that Samsung try releasing products that are actually original. Let's just blame Apple for trying to defend their IP as the law *requires*.
Apple are not suing Sony, LG, Acer and other tablet makers and trying to ban sales of *their* tablets. Why? Because those companies, at least, aren't blatantly attempting to sell products on the back of Apple's R&D and marketing efforts. Apple gave fair warning about their intention to enforce their patents. Samsung decided to call their bluff, and lost.
A "slightly bigger iPad knock-off" was never going to have an easy life. At least Sony have bothered to develop a design language that's recognisably their own. Samsung haven't exactly set the world alight with their design skills. Take a look at their US advertising for their Tab 10.1": note the suspiciously Apple Store-like shop the customers buy it from. Note, too, the suspiciously Apple-like packaging their tablet is sold in. Note how similar the two devices appear when shown side by side: you really do need to look pretty closely to tell them apart.
Show a *layperson* a Samsung Tab 10.1" and an iPad, side by side, and that *layperson* will agree with Apple. Samsung are clearly ripping off Apple's design aesthetic, right down to that oh-so-original packaging.
Laypeople have no bloody clue what "Android" is; the term "operating system" is meaningless to most humans, though some may have a vague impression that it has something to do with Microsoft. Nor do *laypeople* give a flying toss about "open source"—many probably believe it's something you pour over cooked pasta.
You can argue the politics of software development until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that ignorance is an incurable disease: *everyone* suffers from it, including you and I. It's simply not possible to learn everything about everything, and what you might consider important—C++ vs. Python; vi vs. emacs; CLIs vs. GUIs; tabs vs. spaces—will bore most people to tears. (Or, more likely, suicide.)
What you cannot do is claim some form of moral high ground when a company like Apple take another company to court for blatantly breaking the damned law. Underdog or not, the law applies *equally* to all. And Samsung are hardly on the financial ropes in any case: they have plenty of money.
As some UK companies with shallower pockets than Apple have learned the hard way - Samsung is always ready to call your bluff.
I know I am going to get modded down into oblivion, but Apple is right here. Samsung has actually copied even the charger:
FFS, they could have designed at least that one moderately different.
What a stupid comment.
The plugs are the same because there is a 'standard'.
However, when I look at the chargers in my room they are all different - almost every single one of them. Some are the same as a standard pug, some are like huge lumps of black plastic, so heavy they break the wall sockets. some are dinky and cute. But with the exception of the Apple chargers for the laptops they are all different.
The big, heavy ones you describe are transformers.
OK - in front of me now I can see three laptops, all of which have exactly the same design and style of plug, so much so that if I wanted to unplug one of them I'd have to follow the cables back to the machines to find out which is which. Admittedly somewhere along the cables there is a big black box which handles the power. I can also the plug for my Kindle, which is again the same style, albeit white and slightly more triangular (and has "Amazon" written on it), and the plug for charging my phone which is similar to the Kindle one - I often use the charger for one of these devices to charge the other. I can also see a lamp, a TV, a Wii, a hi-fi, and their plugs all look exactly the same. That was the point of my "stupid comment". It's a plug. The design is pretty samey. To say "OMG THEY EVEN COPIED THE PLUG FROM APPLE!!!11!!ONE!!1" is a bit silly.
I think you're also missing another point. The plug in the picture is two-pin, unlike our three-pin standard. Many two-pin plugs are recessed (if you don't believe me, go overseas) so the shape of a plug is kind of limited by this.
No Peter Lee. What you said was that the chargers had to be the same. The fact that your three laptop chargers are the same is irrelevant. My three Apple laptop chargers are the same. But the charger for my iPhone is different, as is the charger for my SatNav and they are different again from the charger for an iPad and my cordless electric drill.
You seem to be confusing a standard for Plugs which have to fit into a standard mains socket with Chargers (or PSUs for that matter). They can be any shape the designers wants them to be as long as the pins still fit the standard power socket.
The big heavy ones are indeed transformers - so are the majority of the little chargers. I can't think of a phone that runs on 240 volts - can you?
They could've chosen to make the plug any shape they chose, instead they decided to copy apple again. Why not make it cylindrical or triangle with grooves so your fingers won't slip or something, anything but 'slavishly copy'. Apple chose square, Samsung chose to copy apple.
I'm no fan boy, I'd like to see some differentiation, competition and innovation in the market.
Sadly what I am seeing is, is a lot of zealots banging their own drums. It seems impossible to have a rational debate on any forum anywhere without it descending to the level of the play ground, with a lot of juvenile name calling.
I wonder if all those complaining about the courts would have the same opinion of the courts decision if the decision had gone the other way.
Patent law does not require enforcement, it's optional.
You're thinking of trademarks.
Also, before declaring that the iPad is revolutionary and Samsung are just copying it, you might want to look at all the prior art - Star Trek for instance. The idea of a thin tablet computing device has been obvious for decades.
Show a layperson a science fiction show, an apple tablet and a tab and they'll have the same problem you posit. That this is anywhere near the courts in the first place is ludicrous. Compete on features and price, or genuine innovation. Not "nuh-uh, I patented this tiny, insignificant aspect of of an obvious progression of the technology before you did!"
The key to winning these legal battles is to focus your fire on one enemy at a time. If Apple are successful in their tactics, no-one else will try to market a device: (a) from a shop; (b) presented in a cardboard box; or (c) that's flat and square.
If there was legitimate IP involved, I might agree with you, but neither (a), (b) or (c) can be claimed to be something that's original to Apple - though they may well have been more successful at marketing them than anyone else.
Do you actually know the facts about the case? The patents that Apple have used in Australia to attack Samsung would apply to any other tablet maker. They have to start with someone, Samsung probably have the best competition on the market to the iPad at present, so they've started with them. Given Apple's recent history, it's highly likely that having won (provisionally) against Samsung, they'll start on the others.
As to show a Tab 10.1" and an iPad side by side - are you really saying that no-one can tell the difference? Seriously? Please tell me you're not looking at the digitally altered photo that Apple submitted to the (I think) German court which put the two side by side.
It's time to remind the itards how original that apple design language is.
Why should one company be allowed to make a decision from its expensive R&D process and then ban all other companies from making a similar decision from their own expensive R&D processes? And why couldn't the makers of JooJoo sue the mega-rich Apple for stealing their design? This is about money and anti-competitiveness, nothing more. Apple has no moral highground (and won't do until they stop producing the ipad and give all their money to JooJoo's makers and HP).
Not that Samsung made all the same design decisions of course. Give a layman Galaxy Tab and an ipad and they'll tell immediately you that the screens are different shapes and sizes, one is landscape whereas the other is portrait and one has a boring static grid of icons whereas the other has a configurable arrangement of widgets and icons. They don't need to know what Android is when they see the 2 products side by side, even less so when they use each of them, hold them or look at the backs of the products. They are, in a word, different.
".. heaven forfend that Samsung try releasing products that are actually original. Let's just blame Apple for trying to defend their IP as the law *requires*."
Not sure where you got your legal training, but I would guess you're confusing trademarks with every other form of "Intellectual Property". Of course, this does mean that the constant vague "IP infringement" claims can be declared a success (I have always held that the marketing guys are driving this to cause this confusion, and not to actually win any cases.)
For future reference, trademarks must be enforced, but all other IP (copyright, patents etc) can be enforced selectively, simply by giving the infringer of copyright or patent exclusivity a free license (which can be retrospective).
Show a *layperson* an electronic photo frame and an iPad, side by side, and that *layperson* will agree with Samsung. Apple are clearly ripping off the electronic photo frames design aesthetic, and right down right down to that oh-so-original rectangular packaging i.e. a rectangular cardboard box.
Here ya go fanbois, another post for you to downvote
".......................other tablet makers and trying to ban sales of *their* tablets."
That might just have something to do with the fact that with the sole exception of Asus (not even Apple's lawyers could accuse Asus of copying iFruit with the Transformer's form factor) the only OEM currently producing both phones and pads whose sales are beginning to make Cupertino really nervous is in fact Samsung. I have to say though that this legal campaign does not seem to be likely to harm Samsung that much - for example the Galaxy S II appears to be readily available (and selling really well) in most of Europe and the US. No disrespect to our Antipodean compadres but I do not think that the temporary injunction down there will end up hurting Sammy that much.
Why should anyone care about Samsung? They are historically well known to steal ideas from everyone else - right down to dismantling color television sets from the United States, Europe and Japan in the 70's in order to copy them. No changes here besides stealing IP from a customer that has deep enough pockets to actually fight back.
Because as far as I can tell this is a copyright issue, not an IP issue. The problem is that the tab looks a bit like an iPad, not that it uses Apple technology.
Until Samsung start counter suing Apple for IP infringement that is, because I am pretty sure Apple infringe on Samsung IP.
"Because as far as I can tell this is a copyright issue, not an IP issue." Copyright *IS* IP you fucking moron! "IP" mean "intellectual property". Trade dress or how something looks is intellectual property. Hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion on this and I'm not going to argue who is right or wrong, but at least have the gumption to understand the fucking issues at hand. Idiot.
... because European TV manufacturers, for example, were using the PAL patent to effectively exclude competition from Asia.
Resulting in much higher prices for European consumers.
Oh, and the loss of all European TV manufacturing as soon as the patent expired because those same businesses had become unable to compete in an open market.
... but then I got my hands on a 10.1 and suddenly it made a lot more sense.
I hadn't previously paid much attention to the detailed spec's of the device. I had simply assumed that like all other Android tablets the 10.1 would have significant points of difference that would make comparisons with the iPad at a legally actionable level obviously ridiculous.
But, it has to be said that Samsung scored a huge own goal by aping the iPad too closely.
- No expandable storage ... check
- Proprietary dock connector ... check
- no HDMI port ... check
Pretty much every other Android tablet out there celebrates and exploits at least one of the differences that Android makes possible. Not so this tablet, and I think it was naive on the part of Samsung to believe that this wasn't going to set them up for a sucker punch on accusations of looky-likey-ness.
This isn't to say that I personally think Apple have a valid case, only that I can see how they can have a legally arguable one.
Are you suggesting they should have used the standard dock connector? Asus use a proprietory one for Transformer, but it doesn't have the sales which Galaxy Tab does, so it's no competition to the ipad. Therefore it's not banned.
When I saw Galaxy Tab alongside other tablets it was most closely like Xoom in design and even a layman could tell it was not an ipad - even before turning it on. Galaxy Tab celebrates having no physical button and being in landscape mode. Android does not make possible the presence of expandable storage any more than ios does - that is a design decision which companies arrive at independently. Having expandable storage is also a design decision arrived at independently. Are you suggesting that only 2 companies should be able to make tables because one of the design decisions has only 2 outcomes?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019