Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
I was trying to address your point, or what I thought it was (which may not be the same thing).
Different aspect ratio = different tires.
Different OS = different engine.
App drawer vs. home screen doesn't matter since they used the same design, even in promotional materials.
Samsung label doesn't matter just like a Ford badge doesn't matter...again, it is not a counterfeit.
|
Sorry, Andrew, but you're just commenting on my first paragraph again.
Here's the rest of my original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
And gave it a look and feel which, yes, was reminiscent of the iPad but which also looks a lot like Samsung's earlier products.
If I'd never seen an iPad I would be perfectly happy with the Tab being a natural evolution of the Samsung design from its televisions, photo frames and video players, with form following function in the long established drive to make consumer devices thinner and lighter.
And that is why the German court's decision is so disappointing.
|
My point, which you have not addressed simply by continuing your argument that the Tab shares design elements with the iPad, is that the Tab also looks to me like a natural progression from Samsung's own products. We've earlier shown that those design elements were present in
photo frames and at least one
video player from before the iPhone was released, and in televisions from soon after. The screen of my Samsung XP netbook -released years before the iPad - would also look very, very like a Tab if removed from the keyboard.
By upholding the injunction, the German judge appears, to me at least, to be telling Samsung that they have to change a look and feel that is as much theirs as Apple's.
Now, it can certainly be argued that Apple's community design document from 2004 predates the emergence of Samsung's design (their products begin to get this styling from 2006), but there were no Apple products with this look visible in the market until more than a year after those first Samsung products were released.
And there was plenty of prior art before 2004, so as Dulin's Books points out, the real issue here is that the community design document should never have been granted.
Graham