(My personal opinion? It seems absurd to me that you can protect something vague like this. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad seem sufficiently different to me as to not cause consumer confusion.)
When did the notion of copying being evil become so mainstream? Copying should be culturally commendable in my opinion.. but maybe that's why I'm not a central planner.
Couldn't I theoretically manufacture a bunch of differently designed crappy tablets that barely work, but may have the shape/aesthetics that future ipads may move to? Seems to me this law would be easily exploited. Instead of a patent portfolio, people would come up with product design portfolios...
Thanks for helping spread massive ignorance about how design patents (etc.) work.
If you make a phone with a distinctive design and patent that design, you list out the many features that comprise that design. You do not have a patent on every single one of those features. If someone copies a few of many features they certainly don't violate your patent. OTOH if they copy almost all of them they almost certainly do.
Where that line is varies and I don't know if Samsung is over the line but it's pretty clear that they are way closer to the line then any other major manufacturer.
And as for who this benefits, I'd suggest that HTC, Motorola and other Android vendors will benefit just as much or moreso then Apple.
As a recent Tab 10.1 owner I am not sure there are enough design similarities with the iPad to warrant a ban.
However this may be a wake up call for Samsung - it is hard not to see their products as being influenced by Apple without any uniqueness to balance the experience. Motorola's product experience for example has a certain Motorola culture in it and doesn't feel anything like Apple. Likewise for HTC.
This may not justify Apple suing them - but in my mind being a copy without it's own unique traits is the worst thing that could happen to a brand. (Everyone copies but successful brands retain their uniqueness.)
I have to agree, but I may be basing it off the first iPad. I was a bit stunned on the plane when I saw how much thinner my tab was than this girl's iPad. I thought they'd be more similar. I was a bit jealous of her monopoly game app though.
It seems to me that there are only so many ways to design a thin, tablet-like device. How different would Samsung have needed to make its tablet so as not to have been affected by this to begin with?
I don't really know much of the background surrounding "community design rights", but I really think that this is a slippery slope to head down.
Competitors should do battle in the free market - not in the court systems.
Let consumers sort out which is the better product. They have no problems doing this without the aid of an injunction.
This stifling of competition via the court system is just another avenue to stagnate progress within the electronics industry.
Sadly for Samsung, Apple's injunction is going to severely harm the company's financial outlook. The device is now blocked across Europe, Australia, and Apple is currently attempting to block the import of all Galaxy devices into the US.
It is sad for Samsung that sales of the Tab are being blocked while the court case is settled, but were they really expecting so many sales that this will “severely harm the company's financial outlook?” I don’t see the Tab as a bet-the-company move for Samsung, this is probably more of an embarassment and inconvenience than a fatal blow.
Yeah, I have a feeling this is going to be worse for Apple than it is for Samsung.
Like you said, Samsung's tablets aren't really selling that well (more were returned last month than sold, I heard), so it's not going to be a significant blow to them, financially.
Now Samsung's failure in the tablet space is going to be big bad Apple's bullying fault, and Samsung will play the role of the martyr. Samsung were failing anyways, but now it's Apple's fault.
The only way Apple wins here is if this prevents other players from imitating them.
No it does not. This is a normal part of business. Why people feel the need to associate 'being afraid of' and 'suing someone' is just strange and biased.
It seems Apple now feels entitled to dictate the limits of choice not only within its own ecosystem but also without. This news comes in the same week that I finally try Android coding and find it much less scary than many people maintain and much more logical than iOS in many ways. Maybe this kind of bullying will tip the balance for me.
According to Nielsen's most recent survey, 50% of the people buying Android phones are doing it out of active dislike of Apple as a company. Expect this number to grow as the public sees more products blocked like this.
I think JooJoo (aka CrunchPad) should sue Apple for design infringements. Clearly it came out before the iPad (JooJoo 2009, iPad 2010). When I see an iPad, I think of the JooJoo pad. It is rectangular; it has a bezel; and it's thin!
Clearly these are all traits only for Apple and an iPad to use. Clearly Apple copied these traits just like how Android copied everything of iPhone.
To me this smells of a couple possibilities. This is the first tablet to my knowledge that Apple has gone after in this way, though it seems the scope is wide enough they could have used it against several others in the market. Makes me wonder if this is the first product that Apple is somewhat worried about? Why this one and why now? The added interest is that Samsung, being a major parts supplier for Apple's products is being singled out despite this.
I don't know what it would mean fiscally for Samsung but I would think they have some leverage in the "Well, if you want to be that way about it" department. Apple may stop getting priority consideration for parts orders over other companies. Also Samsung's product range is wide enough they could easily pull the same move against several of Apple's other products like monitors.
my guess is that this suit is specifically because of samsung and apple's business partnerships, and apple will be dropping the suit in exchange for better pricing or availability on some component they need.
I've always though that Samsung borrows heavily from Apple but the Galaxy Tab seems like a real stretch. There is enough of a difference between the two products where a customer shouldn't get confused.
I think Apple is getting angry about its partners taking what they've learned from Apple and using it to compete directly against them. From the article:
The injunction comes as the latest blow in a tit-for-tat legal war between the two companies, who have otherwise enjoyed a solid working relationship: Samsung produces many of the components used in both the iPhone and the iPad, the design of which it stands accused of copying.
This is the same type of dynamic that led to the falling out between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, when Schmidt, as a board member of Apple, used his inside knowledge of iOS to radically change Android's UI and functionality to compete directly against Apple.
Likewise, this reminds us of Steve Jobs showing Bill Gates the Mac GUI, and then finding out that Gates used that knowledge to revamp the Windows UI to directly compete against the Mac.
Apple has a problem in that it seemingly cannot partner with anyone without those companies then turning around and using their knowledge of Apple's software and design to compete directly against them in the same space.
To me this sounds a bit scary. Is the Galaxy Tab really that similar to the IPad? What about the Xoom? If the Galaxy is banned, why should the Xoom/Asus Transformer be excluded?
There are only so many ways to design a unique rectangular phone or tablet, but Samsung tries to make theirs look closer to Apple's than the others.
Samsung's TouchWiz interface, at least on the phones, could easily be mistaken for Apple's interface in iOS as well, whereas HTC and Motorola's phones can't really.
Making a "copy" (or a real 1:1 copy, for that matter) itself doesn't add any value. Creating a design is an effort that is valuable itself (somebody might pay the designer) but copying a finished design or creating not-so-derivative works is an infinitesimally small effort. And no effort means no value. A copy of a design is worthless.
Conversely, Samsung still has to actually manufacture their tablets: that's a undisputable effort spent and that does create value. Sure their tablets might look same-ish (there aren't that many fundamental designs for a tablet computer) but they haven't created any value in their design. At best Apple should just be flattered to see competitors imitating their looks; however, in no sensible world Apple shouldn't have a say what other companies or people can spend their time and effort in.
Design is not property: there's no "intellectual property". Every time we try to treat mental works as property we fail majestetically, but then try to cough it up and cry for even stricter copyright restrictions.
I am waiting for Gruber's justification for this. I am sure he will be able to cook something up as he always does.
On the other hand, I think this is one of those things, which have brought down Apple time and time again in the past, from the pinnacles of success to being competitively obsolete, mainly due to its inability to adapt to the changing market dynamics.
It's by a German judge and it doesn't go for the Netherlands (tomorrow is the case in the Dutch court). Why would a German judge get to say this for the entire EU I wonder though?
Because the goal of the EU is to create a common market. A EU-wide judiciary is consequently necessary to enforce certain laws (especially those that regulate the common market).
In 2010, Apple bought $5.7B of components from Samsung. The 2011 estimate is $7.8B. I doubt Samsung would stop selling components to Apple, but are there other manufacturers that could delivery compatible parts for Apple's iOS devices if Samsung did?
A lot of companies exist that make various components. BUT few with the quality and volume of Samsung.
Apple is often supply-side constrained. So they could cut Samsung out the mix, but this just makes Apple more vulnerable to supply shortages.
Furthermore, by selecting their way out of one of the biggest screen, CPU, and memory manufacturers in the world and probably having to fund new factories for smaller manufacturers -- this volume is open up to other companies. The end result is cheaper components for Samsung mobile, HTC, Sony, LG, etc...
When you buy an Apple-product, no matter how shiny and polished it seems right there and then, you support this shit. Your newly acquired, polished Apple-product just made your hands dirty.
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
No patent or trademark is the culprit but rather the design (as in: look) of the enclosure. Above article does link to this document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-00018160...
That’s called a community design, it’s an EU thing, here is the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design
This article deals a bit more with community designs and especially the concept of the “informed user” that is somewhat central to them: http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1392Newsle...
Here are images of the current iPad: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
Here are images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/spec....
(My personal opinion? It seems absurd to me that you can protect something vague like this. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad seem sufficiently different to me as to not cause consumer confusion.)
[+] [-] arron61|14 years ago|reply
So I guess only Apple can make a thin tablet. Any other one will be an infringement...
Can Ssamsung sue all other TV makers since they are all rectangular, with a bezel, and is flat? They all look too similar to Samsung TVs!
[+] [-] smokeyj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runT1ME|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] funkah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pewpewarrows|14 years ago|reply
Congratulations, you've violated an Apple patent. Other fun tidbits from their collection:
* A mobile device with rounded corners
* Having a picture of a phone as a phone icon
* Having a picture of a gear for a settings icon
* Interactive widgets
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
If you make a phone with a distinctive design and patent that design, you list out the many features that comprise that design. You do not have a patent on every single one of those features. If someone copies a few of many features they certainly don't violate your patent. OTOH if they copy almost all of them they almost certainly do.
Where that line is varies and I don't know if Samsung is over the line but it's pretty clear that they are way closer to the line then any other major manufacturer.
And as for who this benefits, I'd suggest that HTC, Motorola and other Android vendors will benefit just as much or moreso then Apple.
[+] [-] blinkingled|14 years ago|reply
However this may be a wake up call for Samsung - it is hard not to see their products as being influenced by Apple without any uniqueness to balance the experience. Motorola's product experience for example has a certain Motorola culture in it and doesn't feel anything like Apple. Likewise for HTC.
This may not justify Apple suing them - but in my mind being a copy without it's own unique traits is the worst thing that could happen to a brand. (Everyone copies but successful brands retain their uniqueness.)
[+] [-] RobAtticus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrHobbes|14 years ago|reply
I don't really know much of the background surrounding "community design rights", but I really think that this is a slippery slope to head down.
Competitors should do battle in the free market - not in the court systems.
Let consumers sort out which is the better product. They have no problems doing this without the aid of an injunction.
This stifling of competition via the court system is just another avenue to stagnate progress within the electronics industry.
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
It is sad for Samsung that sales of the Tab are being blocked while the court case is settled, but were they really expecting so many sales that this will “severely harm the company's financial outlook?” I don’t see the Tab as a bet-the-company move for Samsung, this is probably more of an embarassment and inconvenience than a fatal blow.
[+] [-] tjogin|14 years ago|reply
Like you said, Samsung's tablets aren't really selling that well (more were returned last month than sold, I heard), so it's not going to be a significant blow to them, financially.
Now Samsung's failure in the tablet space is going to be big bad Apple's bullying fault, and Samsung will play the role of the martyr. Samsung were failing anyways, but now it's Apple's fault.
The only way Apple wins here is if this prevents other players from imitating them.
[+] [-] drieddust|14 years ago|reply
They do not have any shame in denying a developer his application on false grounds and then copying it over a few iterations later. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/40465/apple-allegedly-copies...
They want to copy notification system from Android. At the same time they want to sue Android for copying context menu.
Now they want to sue other devices because they are rectangular in shape. If this is Apple then I will prefer an Apple free world.
[+] [-] megablast|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
According to Nielsen's most recent survey, 50% of the people buying Android phones are doing it out of active dislike of Apple as a company. Expect this number to grow as the public sees more products blocked like this.
http://www.buzzom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Android-vs-...
[+] [-] arron61|14 years ago|reply
Clearly these are all traits only for Apple and an iPad to use. Clearly Apple copied these traits just like how Android copied everything of iPhone.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg
sarcastic rant
[+] [-] 51Cards|14 years ago|reply
I don't know what it would mean fiscally for Samsung but I would think they have some leverage in the "Well, if you want to be that way about it" department. Apple may stop getting priority consideration for parts orders over other companies. Also Samsung's product range is wide enough they could easily pull the same move against several of Apple's other products like monitors.
[+] [-] AllenKids|14 years ago|reply
HTC's tablet is also under ITC's investigation, initiated by Apple.
Except the A5 SOC nothing Samsung makes for Apple is unique enough. And TSMC is actively testing mass producing Apple's IC.
BTW: Apple's utility model of essentially a giant iPod touch is ridiculously hilarious.
[+] [-] notatoad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outrageo|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg
[+] [-] mendocino|14 years ago|reply
Please, not this again.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-sa...
[+] [-] technoslut|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Perceval|14 years ago|reply
The injunction comes as the latest blow in a tit-for-tat legal war between the two companies, who have otherwise enjoyed a solid working relationship: Samsung produces many of the components used in both the iPhone and the iPad, the design of which it stands accused of copying.
This is the same type of dynamic that led to the falling out between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, when Schmidt, as a board member of Apple, used his inside knowledge of iOS to radically change Android's UI and functionality to compete directly against Apple.
Likewise, this reminds us of Steve Jobs showing Bill Gates the Mac GUI, and then finding out that Gates used that knowledge to revamp the Windows UI to directly compete against the Mac.
Apple has a problem in that it seemingly cannot partner with anyone without those companies then turning around and using their knowledge of Apple's software and design to compete directly against them in the same space.
[+] [-] levesque|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecspike|14 years ago|reply
People have thought my really chunky viewsonic g-tablet was an ipad: http://www.viewsonic.com/gtablet/ and it is no where close.
[+] [-] reaganing|14 years ago|reply
Samsung's TouchWiz interface, at least on the phones, could easily be mistaken for Apple's interface in iOS as well, whereas HTC and Motorola's phones can't really.
[+] [-] yason|14 years ago|reply
Making a "copy" (or a real 1:1 copy, for that matter) itself doesn't add any value. Creating a design is an effort that is valuable itself (somebody might pay the designer) but copying a finished design or creating not-so-derivative works is an infinitesimally small effort. And no effort means no value. A copy of a design is worthless.
Conversely, Samsung still has to actually manufacture their tablets: that's a undisputable effort spent and that does create value. Sure their tablets might look same-ish (there aren't that many fundamental designs for a tablet computer) but they haven't created any value in their design. At best Apple should just be flattered to see competitors imitating their looks; however, in no sensible world Apple shouldn't have a say what other companies or people can spend their time and effort in.
Design is not property: there's no "intellectual property". Every time we try to treat mental works as property we fail majestetically, but then try to cough it up and cry for even stricter copyright restrictions.
[+] [-] sharmajai|14 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I think this is one of those things, which have brought down Apple time and time again in the past, from the pinnacles of success to being competitively obsolete, mainly due to its inability to adapt to the changing market dynamics.
[+] [-] digamber_kamat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tluyben2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|14 years ago|reply
But now, considering USA and Europe... How much did Apple /what/ to make it happen?
P.S. Meanwhile you can still buy one in Russia, and is the ban stays I think those would go really cheap.
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
Apple is often supply-side constrained. So they could cut Samsung out the mix, but this just makes Apple more vulnerable to supply shortages.
Furthermore, by selecting their way out of one of the biggest screen, CPU, and memory manufacturers in the world and probably having to fund new factories for smaller manufacturers -- this volume is open up to other companies. The end result is cheaper components for Samsung mobile, HTC, Sony, LG, etc...
[+] [-] trezor|14 years ago|reply