Galaxy Tab Banned in Europe

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The legal obligation of a corporation is to act in the best interests of its shareholders. But this does not always simply constitute maximising short-term profits, of course.

This may be true in theory, but in practice, given the turnover in both management and in who actually owns the stock, it is frequently the case. If you are not planning to hold on to the stock for a long period of time, short term profits are in your self-interest (defined narrowly in terms of the prevailing economic view of man). It depends on the nature of the company of course (and, practically, on its size). But once you reach the size of, say, the major oil companies and are publicly traded (i.e. your stock becomes commodity), those short term profits assume paramount importance. This is why firms that specialize in corporate takeovers, such as Blackstone Group, are able to make a killing: by any rational standard they damage the long term viability of the companies they take over, but in the short term they drive profits up (and generate massive profits for themselves when they sell the entities they take over).

[Thierry.C]

Originally Posted by din155

Has someone noticed how much publicity in this patent battle, Galaxy line is getting free publicity?

That is also true for Apple... Even if some people —myself included— think that the behavior of Apple is quite questionnable, media are talking about both brand names.

Originally Posted by Dylrob

But dear lord, Samsung isn't exactly subtle with their desire to emulate Apple.

I agree that Samsung may not have chosen the best way to compete with Apple. Nevertheless, that do not give their "EU Community Design" more value, in my opinion. It would be fairer to invoke "trade dress" and let the court decide by comparison.

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Corporations frequently break the law or engage in behaviors that are harmful to the public when the accountants calculate that doing so will bring a greater profit than not doing so, after subtracting losses due to lawsuits, fines, bad publicity, etc.

That is so sadly true.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Thierry.C

I agree that Samsung may not have chosen the best way to compete with Apple.

By putting out a tablet where the size & aspect ratio, exterior buttons/controls, and included OS UI are as different as is practical for a touchscreen tablet? (and packaging, too - though apparently Apple owns the concept of "white box with a picture of the product on it")?

[Thierry.C]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

By putting out a tablet where the size & aspect ratio, exterior buttons/controls, and included OS UI are as different as is practical for a touchscreen tablet?

Not exactly. What I have had in mind since Samsung annouced the revision of their tablet is that they focused to much —in my opinion— in making the tablet thinner than the iPad. That implied removing some ports, reducing the camera's quality, etc.
Besides, if you look at the other "contenders", they rather well managed to produce tablets, whose strengths are different, and "attack" the iPad where it's weak: outputs (USB, SD-card, keyboard, digitizer (a few), camera's quality, ...).
Samsung chose to attract consumers by being similar, whereas some others tried to distinguish themselves (a bit more).
That said, the court should not prevent Samsung from being in the market for that particular reason, except if there are clear evidence that Samsung wants to "confuse" the consumer by using the same "trade dress" as Apple does (which I cannot adjudicate).

[Andrew H.]

I don't really know enough about German law in this area to have much of an informed opinion, but after reading the petition for a preliminary injunction (which you can find here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1), I am a little more convinced that Apple might have a case. The petition (which has photos) describes seven particular aspects of the iPads design:
1. It is a rectangle with 4 equally rounded corners.
2. The surface is covered edge-to-edge by a flat, clear surface.
3. There is a metal rim visible around the edge of the surface.
4. The display is centered under the clear surface.
5. There is a pronounced, evenly spaced bezel around the display and underneath the clear surface.
6. When the product is turned on, there are colorful icons on the display.
The petition also notes that the galaxy tab copied the distinctively thin profile of the iPad 2.

Taken individually, I don't think that any of these design elements are particularly unique, but it is striking that the Tab has all of them. Especially if you compare its design to something like the Acer Iconia (10" or 7").

I don't know whether Samsung copied so much as to violate Apple's IP - but it does seem obvious that they did copy some design features of the iPad which are not inherent to all tablets.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't really know enough about German law in this area to have much of an informed opinion, but after reading the petition for a preliminary injunction (which you can find here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1), I am a little more convinced that Apple might have a case. The petition (which has photos) describes seven particular aspects of the iPads design:
1. It is a rectangle with 4 equally rounded corners.
2. The surface is covered edge-to-edge by a flat, clear surface.
3. There is a metal rim visible around the edge of the surface.
4. The display is centered under the clear surface.
5. There is a pronounced, evenly spaced bezel around the display and underneath the clear surface.
6. When the product is turned on, there are colorful icons on the display.
The petition also notes that the galaxy tab copied the distinctively thin profile of the iPad 2.

Taken individually, I don't think that any of these design elements are particularly unique, but it is striking that the Tab has all of them. Especially if you compare its design to something like the Acer Iconia (10" or 7").

I don't know whether Samsung copied so much as to violate Apple's IP - but it does seem obvious that they did copy some design features of the iPad which are not inherent to all tablets.

Please tell me this is irony

[OtterBooks]

Well I guess now they gotta make it triangle shaped.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Well I guess now they gotta make it triangle shaped.

They could have just left off the metal rim.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Well I guess now they gotta make it triangle shaped.

Maybe that is Apple's big announcement in September, they are becoming a patent trolling company.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't really know enough about German law in this area to have much of an informed opinion, but after reading the petition for a preliminary injunction (which you can find here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1), I am a little more convinced that Apple might have a case.

Thanks for the link. I thought that the galaxy tab was compared to ipad in general, not specifically ipad 2, since this wasn't mentioned in the links in the OP, but isn't it strange that they actually managed to compare these 2 and make a case of it since they were released 1 month apart?

Were they making the case that Samsung got their hands on the ipad 2 patent design papers and made a product very similar to that one?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't really know enough about German law in this area to have much of an informed opinion, but after reading the petition for a preliminary injunction (which you can find here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1), I am a little more convinced that Apple might have a case. The petition (which has photos) describes seven particular aspects of the iPads design:
1. It is a rectangle with 4 equally rounded corners.
2. The surface is covered edge-to-edge by a flat, clear surface.
3. There is a metal rim visible around the edge of the surface.
4. The display is centered under the clear surface.
5. There is a pronounced, evenly spaced bezel around the display and underneath the clear surface.
6. When the product is turned on, there are colorful icons on the display.
The petition also notes that the galaxy tab copied the distinctively thin profile of the iPad 2.

Taken individually, I don't think that any of these design elements are particularly unique, but it is striking that the Tab has all of them. Especially if you compare its design to something like the Acer Iconia (10" or 7").

I don't know whether Samsung copied so much as to violate Apple's IP - but it does seem obvious that they did copy some design features of the iPad which are not inherent to all tablets.

The design above could be describing some of the HTC phones from a few years back --- the Touch HD, the HD2, the EVO, etc. So that is were Apple's design ideas came from.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The design above could be describing some of the HTC phones from a few years back --- the Touch HD, the HD2, the EVO, etc. So that is were Apple's design ideas came from.

Apple has been using the design since the original iPhone. Which came out before any of those.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

Apple has been using the design since the original iPhone. Which came out before any of those.

No, the Touch HD is from 2006. And before that there were other, similar designs with slight variations like the Touch which is another year older. (that one had some additional control buttons). And many other earlier ones as you can see this design shape slowly being developed going back to 2000. A clear evolutionary history, shaped in part by advances in production technology.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

No, the Touch HD is from 2006.

That would be impossible, since the original HTC Touch was only released in 2007 (I remember because it interested me at the time). A quick google search reveals that the Touch HD was released in 2008.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

That would be impossible, since the original HTC Touch was only released in 2007 (I remember because it interested me at the time). A quick google search reveals that the Touch HD was released in 2008.

Mea culpa 2006 was the year of the great Universal -- however, the first "flat bezel phone" by HTC, the Touch, is from June 11, 2007.