Galaxy Tab Banned in Europe

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

and thats a problem. the materials submitted by the lawyers in a case have to be factual. using 'chopped photos in their submissions to the judge absolutely should be material. its the same as supplying false testimony.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

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.

Why? Because he's the judge in this case. So of course his opinion has more weight than anyone else weighing in here. That was my point.

And I don't know his technical background-and I highly doubt anyone here knows either.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by kjk

Why? Because he's the judge in this case. So of course his opinion has more weight than anyone else weighing in here. That was my point.

And I don't know his technical background-and I highly doubt anyone here knows either.

Zis opinion has more weight legally, yes.

But it would be fallacious to leap from that that therefore zis opinion is more well informed. It may be. It may not be.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

Then the judge was either bought, owns Apple stock (ie, conflict of interest), has a personal interest in and favoritism for Apple products, or is mentally incompetent and should be removed from both the case and the bench.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

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

****SAMSUNG IMAGE****

****iIMAGE****

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

****PLAYBOOK IMAGE****

They're all in a grid format! Do I win the prize?

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

They're all in a grid format! Do I win the prize?

Nah. Since the icons on computer desktops have been auto-arranging themselves in grids since the mid-90s, any prize for noticing icon grids would've been given out loooooooooong ago.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Then the judge was either bought, owns Apple stock (ie, conflict of interest), has a personal interest in and favoritism for Apple products, or is mentally incompetent and should be removed from both the case and the bench.

Or maybe he was accurately applying German IP law.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

and thats a problem. the materials submitted by the lawyers in a case have to be factual. using 'chopped photos in their submissions to the judge absolutely should be material. its the same as supplying false testimony.

It would be material if the photos were submitted to show that the devices were the same size. It is not material if the photos are used for some other purpose. In this case, the photo was used to illustrate the six design elements at issue in the case. (A point that the computerworld article much more misleadingly downplays). It was not used to suggest that the devices were the same size or had the same aspect ratio. (Which would be pointless anyway, as the size difference of the two devices is clearly shown on previous page).

[kartu]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

Are you sure about that? Considering Samsung wasn't even there, where did Apple get the device to present it to judge, I wonder.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Or maybe he was accurately applying German IP law.

It's she (Johanna Brukner-Hoffman), not he.
German IP laws are nearly identical to Dutch. And court in Netherlands dismissed "oh we've registered this design", "swipe to unlock" and other claims by Apple.

And it was Apple's choice, where to sue, as far as I know.



And note that this is still not a final decision. It's just Samsung tried to lift the sanctions, but Mrs Johanna Brukner-Hoffman refused to since "minimalistic design is not the only way to do it". Not sure what she means, maybe Samsung should have made metal bezel a bit more prominent, like Motorola?

Ipad + Motorola Xoom + Samsung Galaxy Tab



PS
Oh, and check how starting screens on these tablet actually look. I'd dare to say motorola/samsung device have a very different look.

[Graham]

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:

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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

And you know this how?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

Sending modified photos should be illegal, just as Dulin said:

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

and thats a problem. the materials submitted by the lawyers in a case have to be factual. using 'chopped photos in their submissions to the judge absolutely should be material. its the same as supplying false testimony.

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.

The people who own an ipad are under the impression that everybody that wants a tablet wants an ipad, and that the galaxy tab is the closest thing to an ipad, so that is why people want it. And in statistic a group has more weight than a single person.

Minimalist design is not the only way to do things, but it is the only way to get a product that is thin and light. Any design elements that you add will also add to the size and the weight. Except for the logo.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The people who own an ipad are under the impression that everybody that wants a tablet wants an ipad, and that the galaxy tab is the closest thing to an ipad, so that is why people want it.

"The people who own an iPad"

Riiiiight.

[afv011]

Apparently German retailers can bypass the ban:

Despite the fact that German courts recently decided not to lift the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, OSnews is reporting today that German retailers will technically still be allowed not only to sell remaining stock of the Tab, but to reorder from Samsung as well.

Source

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by kartu

Are you sure about that? Considering Samsung wasn't even there, where did Apple get the device to present it to judge, I wonder.

Here's a link to a news story showing the court and the devices. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ive7rC81mQU

Yeah, I'm not sure where they got a copy of the Tab. I was under the impression that they submitted it with their original request for an injunction. Also, Samsung was present at the adversarial hearing on Aug 25. (There was an ex parte hearing on Aug 9 where Samsung was not present and where the court granted a TRO (a type of preliminary injunction granted without the other party). Then there was an adversarial hearing on Aug 25 where Samsung did appear; the Sept. 9 decision is the result of the Aug 25 hearing.

It's she (Johanna Brukner-Hoffman), not he.

Right. My bad. :-)

German IP laws are nearly identical to Dutch. And court in Netherlands dismissed "oh we've registered this design", "swipe to unlock" and other claims by Apple.

I don't really know anything about Dutch IP laws.

And I don't mean to suggest that German court's ruling was the only possible way it could have come down in this issue. I *do* want to show what the basis for the decision was, and that this was a close case. And that the judge's decision is neither moronic nor based on corruption.

And it is of course also the case that federal judges in different jurisdictions in the US reach different conclusions in similar cases.

And it was Apple's choice, where to sue, as far as I know.

Yes - although I think they were under the impression that suing in Germany would cover the entire EU aside from the Netherlands.

And note that this is still not a final decision. It's just Samsung tried to lift the sanctions, but Mrs Johanna Brukner-Hoffman refused to since "minimalistic design is not the only way to do it". Not sure what she means, maybe Samsung should have made metal bezel a bit more prominent, like Motorola?

Right, it's still just a preliminary injunction. Although with the final hearing likely set for sometime in 2012 (and the Tab off the market in Germany until then, it is a pretty big blow.

Ipad + Motorola Xoom + Samsung Galaxy Tab



PS
Oh, and check how starting screens on these tablet actually look. I'd dare to say motorola/samsung device have a very different look.

I'm kind of undecided on how that cuts. On the one hand, yeah, the starting screens are different, which might mean something. On the other hand, "yeah, we copied Apple's starting screen, but not on *our* starting screen" isn't the most compelling argument, particularly if both screens are used to select the apps to run.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, Andrew, but you're just commenting on my first paragraph again.

Here's the rest of my original post:



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.

More than anything, I'm trying to explain the rationale of the German court's decision. I'm not really sure how important or unimportant the "natural progression" theory is. But I don't think that Samsung made that argument to the court, so it may not be significant.

And it may not even be right: this Samsung tablet from 2007 doesn't seem to be part of a natural progression to the Tab:



And while the front of the picture frame does look an awful lot like an iPad, the picture frame as a whole does not:

(And of course there is the 2004/2006 issue)

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.

This is true enough.

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

I'm not really convinced by the prior art issue. The Dutch court did the community design on the basis of prior art, specifically mentioning this compaq tablet:



And this may be right as a matter of Dutch law - I don't know anything about Dutch IP law. But purely as a matter of design, I really don't think that that looks much like an iPad at all.