Galaxy Tab Banned in Europe

[Sweetpea]

So, there was an update on the Samsung vs Apple case.

The Galaxy S, S II and Ace aren't allowed to be sold anymore after october 13th.

Reason? Not the looks of it. But because of the way you page through pictures in the picture gallery...

(in Dutch: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76359/rec...nederland.html)

Oh, the tab can still be sold...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Reason? Not the looks of it. But because of the way you page through pictures in the picture gallery...

That's bizarre. That's one element of my Galaxy S that doesn't work as well as on an iPhone...

Or are they referring to the (surely incredibly obvious) way you swipe to the left or right to get to the next or previous photo?

EDIT: Here are the details:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...eliminary.html

Graham

[Graham]

From the documents above, Apple appears to have patented tapping on the image of a photo album to open thumbnails, scrolling through those thumbnails with a swipe, and then tapping on a thumbnail to open a photo full screen:

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...=&locale=en_EP

Graham

[Graham]

From an update to the FOSS Patents blog page I linked above:

In all likelihood, the winning patent is infringed by Android itself -- maybe not the operating system per se, but by one or more of the applications that ship with Android and without which the usefulness of Android would be impaired in one particular area (photo galleries). Apple now has the first enforceable court decision in its hand (out of many lawsuits going on around the world) that finds Android to infringe an Apple patent.

Graham

[HarryT]

Sounds like a useful new source of licence revenue for Apple, if Google have to pay a licence fee for every copy of Android that's sold.

[matthew tenney]

I'd like to see how this turns out.

[Graham]

More details in a statement from Samsung reported by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14652482

However, the judge rejected several other patent issues, as well as Apple's claim that Samsung had stolen many of its design ideas.

Samsung welcomed the judgement. In a statement, the company said: "Today's ruling is an affirmation that the Galaxy range of products is innovative and distinctive."

It will be interesting to see if the German court reaches the same conclusion with regard to the design injunction.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

They get a preliminary injunction handed down against them, and they rush to declare victory?

That's the very definition of spin.

How many courts have rendered a negative verdict for Samsung? It doesn't matter if they win on six and lose on one -- the device is still banned.

How is that a win?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

They get a preliminary injunction handed down against them, and they rush to declare victory?

That's the very definition of spin.

Come on Rock, they have had all but that one patent claim in the batch thrown out, along with the claim of look and feel infringement. I think Samsung can be pretty happy with that.

Samsung can redesign the photo gallery to work round that one patent, and the ruling states that if they do that they can continue selling their phones.

Graham

[Graham]

Let's think about that one patent for a moment. As far as I can see from trying to read the fairly impenetrable document I linked above, Apple have patented the way photo galleries have worked on PCs for at least 10 years (since Windows XP for me), but with finger tapping and swiping replacing mouse-clicking and scrollbar dragging.

I'd be interested to know whether using the touch version of Windows XP with photos in folders with a photo image used as the folder icon would therefore violate the patent claim. It would the way I'm reading it.

Graham

EDIT: I incorrectly stated that Win 95 had thumbnail support for images. Further research suggests that this came in with Windows XP, so I've updated the time period above.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Graham

Come on Rock, they have had all but that one patent claim in the batch thrown out, along with the claim of look and feel infringement. I think Samsung can be pretty happy with that.

Samsung can redesign the photo gallery to work round that one patent, and the ruling states that if they do that they can continue selling their phones.

Graham

It shouldn't be hard to redesign it, although it may be (I'm not sure) an Android design (i.e., an app that ships with all Android phones). So Android may need to be the one to redesign it, and, potentially, it could affect many more phones than the Samsung.

On the other hand, the injunction doesn't take effect until October, so Samsung/Google may be able to update the affected phones quickly enough that there is no actual service interruption.

I wouldn't say that the ruling would make Samsung happy. Although the ruling might make them relieved.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I wouldn't say that the ruling would make Samsung happy. Although the ruling might make them relieved.

True. "Relieved" is a better way to describe it.

And they still need to wait and see what happens in the German case with regard to the Tab.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

Thats my point (in the edited post) -- they are developing a string of negative court victories. They can declare 'win!' all they want, but they have to know that they are 0-3 in the legal systems of the world -- and that their strategy of 'copy whatever Apple makes' is now on the ropes.

They are not going to keep copying Apple if the judges around the world keep ruling against them. All Apple needs is for one violation to be found and their import chain and their engineering teams are off to the races to make changes.

The cost of victory to profit ratio is going to swing against them.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Thats my point (in the edited post) -- they are developing a string of negative court victories. They can declare 'win!' all they want, but they have to know that they are 0-3 in the legal systems of the world -- and that their strategy of 'copy whatever Apple makes' is now on the ropes.

They are not going to keep copying Apple if the judges around the world keep ruling against them. All Apple needs is for one violation to be found and their import chain and their engineering teams are off to the races to make changes.

The cost of victory to profit ratio is going to swing against them.

The judge didn't appear to uphold your opinion that Samsung had a "strategy" of "copying whatever Apple makes", and it doesn't look like the ruling on the photo gallery is going to cause significant problems to Samsung:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Ap...gainst_Samsung

Only this one patent is violated - the complaints about two other patents as well as the design patents has been thrown out. In other words, the judge did not agree with Apple that Samsung is copying Apple's design. The injunction only covers the Galaxy smartphones, since they run Android 2.x; Android 3.0 does not violate the patent in question, and hence, sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can continue. In fact, only the Gallery application violates the patent in question, and Samsung has already stated it is going to replace this application on all new Galaxy smartphones from now on - sales won't even be interrupted. In other words - two patents thrown out, design stuff rejected, and only one patent complaint upheld which will cause no harm to Samsung. Apple just scored a meaningless victory. The Dutch court order is here. The pictures speak thousands of words.

Graham

[Graham]

On the look and feel, which will have a bearing on Samsung's defence in the German case, from the link I posted above:

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The Kinght Ridder is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

LG Prada (as not linked in the article):



Graham