Galaxy Tab Banned in Europe

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

they really didn't need to include the same type of metal rim or the grid of icons .

Samsung and LG had already used the metal rimmed edge before the first iphone debuted.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by rhari79

And if it was just about weight reduction, then motorola could have released a less heavier Xoom. That it didnt could be because it doesnt have the knowledge that samsung "possibly" used.

They stole Apple's shrink ray?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, it isn't. A lot of commenters have neither read Apple's complaint nor the judge's rulings, and simply assert that the Tab was banned because it had a rectangular design.

And you didn't notice that the photos were modified. I have no idea how Apple managed to convince the judge not to dismiss the case based on that, and send them home with a fine.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by kjk

I don't think that "one and the same" was the burden of proof in this case.

+1

This is not a counterfeit case. It's not a case of the Tab being a "knockoff," like so many imitation Louis Vuitton handbags are. It's a case of Samsung copying Apple's design too closely.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Samsung and LG had already used the metal rimmed edge before the first iphone debuted.

The community design dates to 2004. And while the LG phone does kind of look like an iPhone, it doesn't look like the iPad at all (no even bezel, a row of buttons on the front, not particularly thin, no grid of square icons).

Again, the problem is not that the tab used this or that element that the iPad also used. It's that it used so many of the iPad's elements at once. If the Tab looked like a Nook Color or an Acer Iconia or an Archos 70 tablet...or any number of other tablets, there would be no issue at all.

[Dulin's Books]

they are not ipad's elements. that the problem with the ruling. that's actually the problem with the EU Community Design used by apple.

square icons with rounded corners were in use before the community design was applied for. edge to edge glass is a manufacturing choice that shouldnt be limited to one company. even bezel is a manufacturing choice that should not be limited to one company. asymmetric bezels are annoying to the eye.

The shape of the Galaxy tab is significantly different. It is 16:9 and meant to be held in landscape by default not 4:3 and Portrait as is iPad. The placement of the cameras is different, it has no buttons on the face. Its Icons have rounded corners but they are actually radiused differently then the Apple Icons. It has ports and buttons on the edges which are different from the Apple. The speakers are located in different spots. The back cover of the Samsung is immensely different

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Those issues don't matter. The issue is not that Samsung made a *counterfeit* iPad. The issue is that Samsung appropriated too many distinctive design elements from the iPad.

Analogies are always imperfect, but I'll use one anyway. Volvo station wagons have a distinctive look. If Ford wants to make a station wagon, they can't copy the Volvo's design. They can't copy Volvo's design even if they have a different engine under the hood. And they are still copying Volvo's design even if they make minor changes to the design - like using 16" wheels instead of 17" wheels, or if they have slightly different door handles. And it doesn't matter if the car says "Ford" and not "Volvo" on the grille.

So a different OS, slightly different aspect ratio, and different location for the icons do not really distinguish the Samsung's design from the iPad's design. Or at least make it much more difficult to do so than people seem to think.

(And, honestly, some of the Samsung's choices are just blatant rip-offs - even if we grant them the shape and edge-to-edge glass, they really didn't need to include the same type of metal rim or the grid of icons (even if you get to them by doing X instead of Y...particularly when Samsung used them in their promotional copy)

There are a lot of ways of designing a station wagon other than the Volvo way - other companies just have to choose a different design. (And while they can't be penalized for elements that are inherent in all station wagons (4 wheels, 4 doors and a hatch, etc., there are many, many ways to incorporate these elements without looking like a volvo.

Way to go ignoring the rest of my post, Andrew, where I actually made my point.

Graham

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by rhari79

If it was just about a rectangle, Apple could have easily gone after Motorola/Archos/Dell etc.,
Or even most of the pocketpc tablet makers could have buried Apple.

And if it was just about weight reduction, then motorola could have released a less heavier Xoom. That it didnt could be because it doesnt have the knowledge that samsung "possibly" used.

Found this, but it's a month old:

According to the complaint filed against Samsung with the Landgericht Düsseldorf, Apple has also filed complaints in the same court against both Motorola and a German company called JAY-tech over the iPad design. The complaint against Motorola targets the company's Xoom Android tablet, which launched in late February. Though the filing doesn't say exactly what relief Apple is seeking from the court, FOSS Patents notes that timing is a key element in requesting a preliminary injunction according to German law, so Apple may have simply requested an EU-wide injunction that would only apply after a full trial.

Edit: Last year's madness seems to have gone unnoticed, but someone made a nice presentation of it.

[Dulin's Books]

here is an actual photo of Samsung's App drawer followed by a photo of apps on the ipad 2





notice anything about the icons? Samsung's app drawer has icons of varying shapes. Ipads are all the same shape. Samsung doesnt restrict applications icons to one distinct shape as Apple does.

edit : just for fun here is the BB Playbook App Drawer

[anamardoll]

I'm really appreciating all the pictures in this thread. Thank you.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And you didn't notice that the photos were modified. I have no idea how Apple managed to convince the judge not to dismiss the case based on that, and send them home with a fine.

Agreed, the case should have been thrown out the moment Apple tampered with those pictures.

[Dulin's Books]

I've seen people write on blogs etc suggesting that since the Judge could have the devices in hand/in person it didnt matter that the pictures provided by APPLE were modified.

I am at a loss to explain that thinking at all.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

I've seen people write on blogs etc suggesting that since the Judge could have the devices in hand/in person it didnt matter that the pictures provided by APPLE were modified.

Does the Judge own a tablet? Because so far the opinions seem to go:
ipad owners: they are the same
the rest: they are different

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

They stole Apple's shrink ray?


And you didn't notice that the photos were modified. I have no idea how Apple managed to convince the judge not to dismiss the case based on that, and send them home with a fine.

The judge compared the actual physical galaxy tab to an actual physical ipad.

The idea that the photos in the pleading were material at all was only internet chatter.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Graham

Way to go ignoring the rest of my post, Andrew, where I actually made my point.

Graham

I was trying to address your point, or what I thought it was (which may not be the same thing).

... and made it a different aspect ratio, and run a different operating system with a different home screen layout, hiding away those icons in an app drawer, and put a big SAMSUNG on the front just in case anyone was still in any doubt.

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.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Does the Judge own a tablet? Because so far the opinions seem to go:
ipad owners: they are the same
the rest: they are different

Conclusion: Judge is an iPad owner?

The judge's opinion has a bit more weight, I'd say, than a tiny sample of eReader fans.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by kjk

Conclusion: Judge is an iPad owner?

The judge's opinion has a bit more weight, I'd say, than a tiny sample of eReader fans.

Why?

No, I'm serious. Most judges aren't as up-to-date on all the tech evolution as we are. I would not assume that the shopped-for-judge in any case has ever had to think about bezel uniqueness before.