×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Appeals Court Confirms Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the can't-win-for-losing dept.

Handhelds 161

New submitter Killer Panda sends word that a German Appeals Court has upheld the injunction prohibiting sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany. Apple convinced lower courts to issue and uphold the injunction last year by making the case that Samsung's devices "slavishly" copied the iPhone and iPad. "Samsung, which is Apple's supplier as well as a competitor, has been trying to have the German decision overturned while also seeking other means to fight Apple. It redesigned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for the German market only and named it Galaxy Tab 10.1N to get around the sales ban. Apple challenged the reworked version but a German court last month rejected Apple's claims in a preliminary judgment." The European Union announced some more bad news for Samsung: they'll be investigating the company to see whether its use of patent lawsuits is illegally hindering other companies' use of standardized 3G technology. "Under EU patent rules, a company that holds patents for standardized products is required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880081)

Granted, I only read TFS, but to my defense, I got so disgusted that all energy left my body in an instant.

Princess Syndrome (5, Insightful)

killfixx (148785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880089)

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

I've seen this behaviour time and again, if it's pretty or popular, it's easier to let all manner of misdeeds slide.

Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

Isn't there some manner of oversight for something like this.

If my son were to insult another student repeatedly, without offending the teacher, that later resulted in said student having a violent outburst, not only would my son be brought up on bullying charges (legit in my state), but so would the teacher for ignoring the bullying.

But corporations are fully allowed to do this without repercussion.

That upsets me.

Shame on them.

When defending yourself... (1, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880159)

... you still have to be reasonable.

Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit against everyone. Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

If the popular kid abuses the geek, and the geek comes to school with a pipe bomb, you better believe the geek is going to the principal's office... Or worse.
In this case, regardless of the merits of Apple's design patent infringement suit, Samsung fought back in a way they aren't allowed to: they helped establish the 3G standard, apparently withheld certain key patents from the licensing pool for the standard, and are now asserting those patents against a pool member. That's an almost textbook antitrust violation in this country, and Europe apparently has a similar law.

Re:When defending yourself... (5, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880441)

Except that Apple chose to ignore licensing the 3G F/RAND patents for the first several years of the existence of the iPhone, and is now complaining to the courts that they should just be able to pay the same fees that everyone else gets.

So, if this plays out in Apple's favor, the logical end result is that it's the wiser thing for everybody to NEVER license F/RAND patents; worst case for them is that years down the road they might get sued and have to pay the same thing they would have paid anyway, best case is that nobody notices/bothers to take them to court and they get away with it without paying anything.

--Jeremy

Re:When defending yourself... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880561)

Apple was fully prepared to pay FRAND licensing. Samsung was being the douchebag by trying to essentially extort a cross licensing agreement with Apple to use patents covered under FRAND. Apple rightfully refused to bend over. Samsung had ZERO right to change the rules. Apple let the case run its course through the court system until it was agreed that Samsung was in the wrong for pulling such a stunt.

So don't try to spin this story in a way that makes it sound like Apple was trying to purposely avoid paying FRAND. They were fully prepared to pay since day one. Samsung was just being a whiny little bitch that thought it could get ahead by extortion.

Re:When defending yourself... (0, Troll)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880767)

...makes it sound like Apple was trying to purposely avoid paying FRAND

Yes; this is because that is what they were trying to do.

Just like they never paid Xerox for thieving their original GUI ideas 25 years ago; now they wont pay Samsung for thieving their 3G ideas too. They prefer to pay lawyers instead of innovators.

Re:When defending yourself... (4, Informative)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880839)

Except they did pay Xerox, and even hired some of the engineers who led the way on PARC's GUI initiatives. Don't reinvent history.

Re:When defending yourself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881095)

Awww, man, he was an easy target, just let him troll! Who needs evidence when spewing FUD is nice? Join in! Didn't you know, Apple also kills babies?

Re:When defending yourself... (4, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880799)

Except that Apple chose to ignore licensing the 3G F/RAND patents for the first several years of the existence of the iPhone, and is now complaining to the courts that they should just be able to pay the same fees that everyone else gets.

Sort of... but not really. Almost none of the big players pay standard F/RAND patent fees. In almost all cases Samsung (or other holders of equivalent licenses) cuts a side deal where in exchange for the fees being waived or lowered Samsung gets to cross-license other patents. Nokia and Motorola do similar things with standards based on their patents. This is business as usual.

So it was a hell of shock when Apple came to market with a completely new product without having ever approached the license holders to set up this sort of agreement. It was just assumed that any company would prefer to do a licensing agreement than pay the standard fees. It had never even crossed their minds that Apple would (or could) just pay the fees up front instead. It's one of the reasons you hear people talking about Apple bringing the iPhone to market before they had negotiated the licenses. Apple didn't need to negotiate anything because standard F/RAND licenses are automatic, the same way you don't need to negotiate before accepting the GPL license on a piece of software. It's just that everyone does negotiate for a better deal in exchange for concessions. Apple didn't ignore the F/RAND licensing, they ignored Samsung's attempts to refuse payment and cut an alternate deal.

And Sumsung doesn't want the license fee. They would much rather have Apple's patent and IP concessions. So they are in the position of trying to force Apple not to accept the publicly available license terms. That's why they are getting their knuckles rapped by the courts here. No different than if a company that released their code under the GPL and then started trying to sue companies who were using it according to the license. Doesn't matter what the other company might have done to provoke them, it's still not going to fly in front of a judge.

Re:When defending yourself... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38882005)

Citation needed.

A serious one thanks, I have seen this stated a few times, but I have never seen any facts backing it up. It is probably just wishful thinking by Apple apologists.

Re:When defending yourself... (2)

GoatCheez (1226876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882823)

I was under the impression that Apple did not wanted to only pay the licensing from "here-on-out" and get away with not paying any fees for the past sales, whereas everyone else either has paid or had a licensing agreement since the beginning. Samsung wanted to use the back-pay as a leverage point to negotiate a cross-licensing agreement, which I do believe is perfectly legal. It is my understanding that if Apple were willing to pay the normal licensing fee for all sales current and old that there would be no issue and Samsung would agree to the deal, however Apple doesn't want to pay the fees for prior sales. This has been my impression from following the cases at least.

Re:When defending yourself... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880867)

This is a two way street.

while they may go after samsung, having this move forward will also put a lot of strength into Barnes and Noble's claims against Microsoft.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880193)

Hmm, bad analogy, both Apple & Samsung are geeks and the popular kid here :)

Two geeks offer services... one geek is ousted and leaves: the other geek abuses power and controls pricing, the ousted geek refuses to come back and a new geek sees opportunity and steps up.

On that note, Samsung isn't exactly innocent...

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880207)

Yes there is a way. Stop buying their products. Make them see the negative sales and profit for some time. That will make them think on their next decision. But giving the intelligence of people (some...not all) they will ignore what Apple do and encourage them by buying apple products. might not be the perfect solution but think about it. if your customers stop buying your products because they think negatively of you...wouldn't you change your attitude towards others before its too late ?

Re:Princess Syndrome (1, Flamebait)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880453)

When you actually do work, its hard to ignore using the best available tool for the job, regardless of the politics involved. I dont have time nor energy to take an ideological stand on everything. At some point we all have real work to get done and quite honestly a truly useable smartphone and tablet GREATLY enhance my work performance. Im going to pick and use the best one that fits my workflow and needs, I dont have the luxury of taking sides. Taking a stand is great, but I have bigger fish to fry then voting insignificantly with my wallet.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

dimko (1166489) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881857)

because of tar, arm, i mean, people like u we got what we got. we got microsft and apple and MPAA and similar stuff. GET A SPINE. Frugs can make your life better, at least your perception of life, which actually counts, buy you dont abuse them. Same with tools, some people have spine and support competition from fear of monopoly. Thats why I wont buy ever again nokia, thats why i have never bought and never will buy windows(bundled copy with laptop is not really buying it, either way i wont buy laptop with windows on it, and if i do I will refuse EULA and demand money back)or any apple products ever, nor fckn sony.

Re:Princess Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38882839)

Let me guess... because English is so popular and widely-spoken, you're rejecting that monopoly too?

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883411)

But giving the intelligence of people (some...not all) they will ignore what Apple do and encourage them by buying apple products.

Obsessing over sensationalist headlines is not an indicator of intelligence.

Re:Princess Syndrome (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880235)

You do realize that Samsung has a far longer history of offensive patent suits than Apple, right? They aren't some "innocent geek" being beaten down by Apple. And in this particular case the EU is absolutely correct in going after them over their attempted abuse of their 3g patents. Sorry, but just because Samsung is an Android manufacturer does not mean their actions are correct or legal regardless of how you feel about Apple's lawsuits against them.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1, Redundant)

dimko (1166489) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881907)

sure, because Samsung was bully it gives Apple full rights to kill it after all, noone will be harmed if Samsung dies out. We really dont need competition. I enjoyed to hear news of Apple growing, but not anymore. They are like slaves who suddenly became masters.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1, Troll)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880329)

I think you're projecting a little bit here. I take it you didn't have the happiest childhood.

The fact is, many of apple's legal claims have been upheld by a multitude of courts in all sort of jurisdictions. Perhaps it's not patent trolling after all? Perhaps Samsung is the real offender here, and is getting pwned around the world because of it.

I think at is point we can apply occham's razor.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880391)

Good point. Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Obviously, then, Apple is right.

Here's a news flash: courts get this kind of crap wrong. All the time.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1, Flamebait)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880527)

C'mon, let's be reasonable. A court may get things wrong, which is why we have a robust system of appeals processes and multiple overlapping jurisdictions. But you have to admit that there's a growing consensus among the courts world over that Samsung was a bad boy. The issue is not black&white, and there's no clear winner, but maybe it's time to turn down the apple is teh evilzzz! vitriol.

Re:Princess Syndrome (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880459)

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

And the German Court's solution to all this reminds me of the "Bells" episode of Black Adder; When Edmund consults the Wise Woman on how to keep his love for "Bob" secret for fear of (mistakenly) being outed, she gives him three options: 1) kill Bob; 2) commit suicide; or 3) go ahead and sleep with Bob and, to ensure no one ever finds out, kill everyone in the entire world.

Re:Princess Syndrome (0, Troll)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880481)

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

If you're going to use that analogy, make it accurate. The most popular girl made it well known what dress she would be wearing to the dance, and then another girl blatantly and deliberately wears the same dress to the same dance. Popular girl seems justified in bitch-slapping the copycat.

Re:Princess Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880919)

Good analogy. Whoever downvoted it deserves a bitch slap themselves...

Re:Princess Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880509)

No, shame on you! You represent the USA and the USA represents you, those douchebags you have in power are there because of you, your family and your friends. You had a choice and this is it, whether by action or inaction this is your fault!

In the EU, people actually try to fight it. In the US, they sue eachother and see who files for bankruptcy first. You have power and used it to force those idiotic laws on the rest of the world.

You're free as long as you have money. Freedom my ass.

Thanks a shitload.

Re:Princess Syndrome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880609)

(Posting AC because I'm at work and I just have to say something in response to this...)

Samsung fights back to try and protect it's market share. Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Uh, they're being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour because they abused FRAND patents. They're being investigated because they acted anti-competitively.

You may not like Apple but, for the love of gawd, pull your head out of your nether-regions and admit the truth - Samsung is abusing FRAND patents which _IS_ anti-competitive behaviour. If Apple wasn't involved, would you honestly be siding with Samsung on this? No - you'd be raking them over the coals for abuse of the patent system.

Wow. It hurts my brain how blind people insist on being simply because they like (or, in this case, dislike) one side or the other... People claim Apple fanboys can be fanatical...

Re:Princess Syndrome (2)

Slashdot Assistant (2336034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880625)

The analogy really doesn't work, but yes, I've seen those 80s movies. Not to worry! The geek will stage an electro concert, or some strange shit like that, which will get the school on their side - with of course some hot cheerleader chick who all along had a soft spot for geeks.

There is no geeky underdog in this real-life story. Instead what we have are two corporate behemoths, slugging it out - neither of which come out of this spotless.

If I missed the point, and this analogy isn't based on 80s movies, then please at least teach your son that the past shapes us, but it should not be a prison. Move on, and understand that peaking at high school isn't always a good thing. The princess is probably now just one of many fairly mundane people, or loaded up with a bunch of kids with more fathers than most of us have limbs. You are among friends!

Equal laws (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880795)

Corporations are not people, there is no such thing as self-defence in the corporate world. We should be happy that the courts got at least one of the two trolls, it shows far more sense than they usually have.

I know exactly why: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881449)

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

Only on Slashdot... LOL.

Go to a "dance" and ask people why. Everybody who is not like you, will know it. I'm serious.

The exact answer is: First it's defensive. The more people want you, the bigger your defenses have to be. And then she notices, that she can abuse it too.
The trick is, to just plow right through the bitchiness, and see it as a part of the defenses, not part of her true personality.
If you uncover that it's just defenses, she usually changes into someone completely different. That's when you know you made it.

The thing is: Underneath, you usually find a pretty shallow and boring personality. Because she never had to fight for things. Everything was just given to her. Everyone served her.

So if you're smart, you won't want her in the first place. Let the idiots hurt themselves on her. Get the sweet girl on the side, which is not such a hassle, and live a balanced relationship and a much happier life. :)

Of course the analogy might not work with phone manufacturers. ^^

Re:Princess Syndrome (0)

Truedat (2545458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883389)

Why is it that the most popular girl at the dance is usually the biggest douchebag?

You know Sharpay from HSM isn't real? So ignoring cliche characters from movies for a moment, popular girls in real life are popular for a good reason, ie they arent douchebags.

Apple begins a very anti-competitive, design infringement lawsuit...

Seems very competitive to me in the hard ball sense, but then again "anti-competitive" seems to have become a synonym of "competitive" round here. A bit like flammable and inflammable.

Samsung gets investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Abuse of FRAND has very serious consequences, explain why Samsung shouldn't be investigated if that's what you think.

Popular kid abuses geek, geek fights back, geek gets sent to the principals office. WTF!?

Jeez, it seems your conclusions are based on your fantasy movie as a substitute for the facts.

I expected (not accepted) this sort of blatant ignorance then, but when it comes to an entire governing body (excuse my ignorance of EU policy) this sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.

So by your own admission you are ignorant of EU policy, yet at the same time are calling them out on their nonsense?

But corporations are fully allowed to do this without repercussion.

Both Apple and Samsung are have the legal spotlight shining on them - does that count as repercussion?

That upsets me.

What upsets you is that the "good guys" (Samsung) may also have been caught with their pants down - the courts will decide this not you or me. And it's that unravelling cognitive dissonance that is causing your discomfort.

Ha! Ha# (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880095)

Ha! Ha!

Samsung = fail

I thought EU was anti-troll (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880163)

I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (2, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880181)

I thought the EU was moving away from copyright trolls ruining everything through the court system? Seriously, this is a big step in the wrong direction!

This has nothing to do with copyright. On the Apple hand, it's a design patent infringement suit. On the Samsung hand, it's an antitrust violation investigation.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (2)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880233)

Ok, it's a "design patent" on the same level as all the copyright stuff. I can't edit my post, or I'd change it to read "frivolous/bullshit/patenting blatantly obvious stuff that shouldn't be patentable". In any case, I thought the EU was trending away from this crap.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (2)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880877)

Design patents are hard to enforce. Really, really hard. One of the reasons you don't hear about them much is that they are damn near impossible to violate, except intentionally, and even harder to get a court ruling on. It's one of those things where if the judge doesn't laugh it out of the room int he first five minutes there is probably a good case. This case has been going on for months. At this point I think the better assumption is that the judge has been able to see more evidence and arguments than can be summed up even a dozen Slashdot articles, and he doesn't think it's a waste of his time.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (-1, Flamebait)

janimal (172428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881345)

Samsung ripped off the look of the packaging AND the product. This is even before you turn the thing on! Copying visual design of popular products falls under copyright as a graphical design.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a flaky area, since it becomes difficult to distinguish what is a unique design, and what is the current trend in design, but in this particular case the copying is blatantly obvious. To add to that, the rules (law) says that such practice is illegal.

Is the box design some common good that should be copied? no. Lay off it Samsung.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (1)

Epimer (1337967) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882073)

The Google translation (so no accuracy guaranteed) suggests that the Court didn't find that Samsung infringed Apple's Community Design Right at all; the finding was under German laws of unfair competition. So it's Germany only, and the finding wasn't even strictly on the grounds of IP use.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880291)

Apple suit is Black Bezels and rounded corners, Samsung suit is about Standards, so but suits are BS. Apple has a bigger pile of BS than Samsung....

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880303)

Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (5, Funny)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880383)

Tablet nothing, they invented the rectangular computing device. No computing device from here on may be rectangular in shape for that shape is owned by Apple.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (0)

teg (97890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880471)

Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.

Or rather, ownership of the concept of everything looking and behaving like an iPad. The tablets prior to the ipad were very, very different - and now a tablet suddenly have to look exactly like an iPad?

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880809)

Certain things about interfaces are absolutely intuitive, such as clicking on/touching a picture representing the task you want the device to perform.

Others are quasi-arbitrary, with the rest coming from what is now common. Green for go, red for stop. Certain things under a file menu. A QWERTY keyboard layout.

These things that we're talking about - they all fall into these two subsets of obvious solutions; solutions that have become the absolute standard, and without which, the technology in general is crippled and unusable to many people.

How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881675)

How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?

By building the much more generic (and significantly larger) 'generic vermin trap.' Unfortunately, the size makes it unusable in many of the cases where people want mousetraps, but it can catch possums, rats, mice, rabbits, and certain unwanted in-laws with a 74% successful hold rate.

Re:I thought EU was anti-troll (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880275)

But it's then okay for another multinational corporation to sue others for patents required to implement a standard that should be available to all under RAND terms? Right, we must defend Samsung at all costs cause they happen to make Android devices! Ignoring the fact that if they were doing this exact same lawsuit against HTC, Motorola, or some other Android manufacturer that Slashdot would be up in arms over it.

aplle sux (2, Insightful)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880203)

Under EU patent rules, a company that hold patents for standardized products are required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price.

but the problem with Apple is, they think they are special and want to pay less as all the other companies, as Samsung is having them pay exactly the same as the rest..

Re:aplle sux (3, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880911)

No, Apple thinks they are special and want to pay the publicly stated license terms. Samsung wants them to do what everyone else does and cut a side deal that waives license fees in exchange for patent and IP cross-licensing.

Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (5, Interesting)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880227)

Galaxy Tab 10.1 is slimmer, lighter, has a higher res camera, a better screen and longer battery life than IPad 2. Oh, its also cheaper, and unlike iPad 2, can be bought "as is", without being tied to a mandatory 12/24 month dataplan, as is the case with iPad 2 where I live. I don't think Galaxy Tab is a shameless copy of iPad 2. I think that it is a significantly BETTER product that happens to look somewhat similar to iPad 2 (then again, all tablet computers look a lot like each other). Apple is suing because Samsung has produced a superior Tablet Computer. And some crappy court in Germany has decided to uphold this stupid claim. Galaxy Tab is the better tablet of the two, and Apple - being its typical agressive, domineering self - is suing to keep Korean Samsung's superior product out of people's hands, so they have have to go and buy an iPad 2 instead.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880285)

Do you only play Zynga games?

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (1)

icongorilla (2452494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880507)

Let's say you create a device. You send the blueprints to a manufacturer and soon start selling a "new segment" product. Lets say the company that was manufacturing your device decides to get in on the action since they see how well you're doing. They know what it will take... they have your blueprint after all.

Would you be upset if you were the designer of the device and manufacturer started putting out something a bit "too" similar to your product? Do you truly believe no further inspection is really necessary?

It's the same vat of hot water as a tech employee jumping between competing companies.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (5, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880725)

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 - being an Android, rather than iOS device - looks and feels nothing like the iPad 2 when its switched on. Completely different UI/graphic design look. In fact it doesn't look remotely similar. Samsung also doesn't call it the sPad or something. They call it Galaxy Tab, which bears no resemblance to "iPad" whatsoever. Try it out yourself. Go to a store that has both the Samsung tablet and the Apple tablet, try both, and come back and tell me that they look similar. They don't! As for whoever modded my original parent post "Troll" - you Apple freaks are the worst fanboys of all. Samsung's tablet is technically superior to iPad 2. Pointing that out - that Apple doesn't have the best device on the market - is stating the facts, not trolling.But go on. Keep living in your twisted little fanboy world where Apple is the greatest computer company on the planet, and its products are the only ones that are great or groundbreaking. You Apple fanboys will grow older and wiser someday, and look back and wonder precisely what it was that was so "amazing" about Apple's products.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (1)

Chrontius (654879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882835)

This sounds distressingly like the story of the CrunchPad, the iPad-preceeding tablet scheduled to sell for $150 that later became the JooJoo and sold for $600, after the manufacturing partner told TechCrunch that they would be moving on with the project on their own.

While it's true the manufacturing team did a great deal of work on making the CrunchPad something manufacturable, they got a lot of work done for them by TechCrunch.

Oh hey - the CrunchPad. TechCrunch made the look-and-feel of it publicly known before either of the products in question were launched, so I think that qualifies as prior art.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881959)

and unlike iPad 2, can be bought "as is", without being tied to a mandatory 12/24 month dataplan

Where in the sam FUCK do you live that you can't buy an iPad without a data plan? Fucking seriously? I call BULLSHIT.

Sorry...I know we here at /. are anti-Apple, but for the love of god at least turn down the FUD to a manageable 10 on the scale...spewing pure bullshit just makes you look like as big of fucking douchebag as the fanbois make themselves out to be.

Re:Galaxy Tab = better than IPad 2 (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882545)

I bought the first-gen iPad 3G the day it first went for sale in the US. It did not require a data plan then, and it doesn't require one now. Which backwater do you live in that forces you to purchase a data plan with, or to use, an iPad?

Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880255)

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (0, Troll)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880317)

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.

Not really... Apple's only claiming the specific design of the iPad, which the Galaxy Tab is confusingly similar to. Apple even noted that tablets could be designed in lots of non-infringing ways, and gave examples like the Archos. The Tab 10.1N was even designed to incorporate those suggestions, which is why the courts have said it doesn't infringe.

Samsung, on the other hand, apparently helped create a standard while holding back key patents from the licensing pool. That's a no-no.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880435)

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

No, the court has taken the opinion that they're not using a "pretty standard UI" but rather, an unusually Apple-like one. It's the trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago, all over again.

And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

You might disagree with it, but it's not unambiguously crazy.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881047)

And then OTOH, all 3G compatible devices must infringe the Samsung patent.

What I don't understand about this is that Apple (and likely most 3G device manufacturers) don't make their own 3G radios. Rather, they source components which use those radios. Isn't it up to the component manufacturer who creates their 3G implementation and sells it to the device manufacturer to cover these sorts of patent fees?

To use a ham-handed example, I'm sure there are lots of patented technologies in automotive tires. If Goodyear makes a tire which relies on a licensed patent from Pirelli, I'd assume that Goodyear provides all the licensing fees and passes the costs along to their customers. If one of those customers is, say Ford, who exclusively uses Goodyear tires on all of it's Festiva cars, does Ford have to pay that licensing fee as well?

There's clearly something that I don't understand, but it seems to me that a 3G radio should be like that tire, in that it's got an interface, and while the device may be designed around the features and functionality of the interface, the implementation of 3G technology is basically embedded within the component.

The only way I could see Apple or other device vendors being held responsible for the licensing would be if they are asking the component vendors to make custom versions of the radios as work-for-hire, i.e. the component manufacturers are just foundries doing the labor on Apple's designs which themselves infringe on the 3G patents. Is that what's going on here?

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881499)

The component vendors don't have to pay. They just manufacture stuff according to customer specs. If said customer specs something that is patented, that's their problem. Not the manufacturers problem, who isn't going to check every worldwide patent every time someone asks for something. Who knows what the customer does with them anyway. So it's usually the problem of the customer to license the patents and surprise, the smaller outfits often forget this step because they assume the manufacturer took care of that little detail.

This situation is why patentholders sometimes barge into the large expos with police, telling the small vendors to pay the license fees right there, or have everything impounded. This actually works quite well for the patentholders. Most people pay. But the background is that the manufacturers don't pay the licenses, usually.

Re:Not sure I understand the reasoning/law here. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881897)

On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.

No, the court has taken the opinion that they're not using a "pretty standard UI" but rather, an unusually Apple-like one. It's the trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago, all over again.

Except the suit isn't even about the on-screen UI, it's about a design patent covering the hardware design -- plain rrect with 3D radius edges, more or less. The aspects of the UI which many fans have reasonably pointed out are similar (partly because of well-established iconography over the past decade, partly not) aren't even at issue.

The reason these aren't at issue is, IMO, likely because of the "trashcan-icon case from 20 years ago", which turned out pretty poorly for Apple, the ultimate ruling (yeah, US, so not applicable in Germany) being that look-and-feel in general, and most specific elements Apple listed that weren't covered by the existing contract, were not copyrightable; the NewWave trash-can icon and folder icons being the ONLY claims they won. The most likely outcome (Samsung forced to change some icons which are unreasonably similar) doesn't really help Apple at this point, since Samsung devices would still be sold, and while it doesn't help them either (Samsung would be forced to cover Apple's legal costs), there's the risk the case goes against them, too -- there's really no business sense in pursuing that, even if they have a case.

OTOH, the design of mechanical components requires significant time to alter, so the design patent case makes sense -- it might block the sale of affected Samsung products for 6 months or so (until a new version, like the 10N, can be brought to market), giving Apple a significant advantage.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (4, Informative)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880297)

The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg [mobile88.com]

Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (2, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880339)

The 10.1 is banned while the 10.1N is allowed.

http://www.mobile88.com/gen/news/articles/2011/11/21/_11212011125638.jpg [mobile88.com]

Talk about marginal court decisions. If you put a protective case on it, no one could tell the difference. Lawyers for the win!

That's more about how narrow design patents are. Which is kinda the point - Samsung really had to work hard (or, rather, not work at all) to infringe the iPad design patent.

bezel is only difference (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880439)

A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

Re:bezel is only difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880495)

But the iPad was the first to have a "skinny" bezel ON A TABLET!

And that's what's most important in getting your patent accepted. Can't wait to see the next wave of the patent rush when people take everything that was ON THE INTERNET! before and repatent it ON A TABLET! and then sue people for using a web app on a tablet.

Re:bezel is only difference (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880807)

A skinny bezel shouldn't be the basis for a design patent...it's a natural form-follows-function progression to the skinniest possible bezel. It's happening in laptops, TVs, phones, and now tablets.

It wasn't the basis. The design patent covers the entire design, not just "a skinny bezel". Lots of other tablets - the Xoom, the Prime - have skinny bezels, but don't infringe the design patent.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (3, Insightful)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880501)

Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge. She agreed with the point that "plain design can be patented" when refering to a device with front end dominated by screen. I guess she has never walked into a TV store. Thing black bezels, slightly rounded rectangles all over the place. Oh, and without "innovative apple" this time, quite naturally.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880791)

Bullshit. Motorola Xoom, Asus Prime (from original Joaha Heffner Megajudge POV) look exactly the same, hence infridge.

Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (2)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881049)

Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front. That was one of the things mentioned in the brief that Samsung could have done differently.

Isn't that weird, though? In my time, you branded your stuff if you wanted it to be unique and to avoid confusion, you didn't leave them plain and then sued everyone else into branding theirs.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (2)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883043)

This is what the Dutch court, right next to Germany, ruled last year. It held that Samsung did not violate Apple's design claims (the same ones Germany says they did). The court pointed out that by choosing a functionalist design, Apple was deserving of less protection.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880643)

Whether the 10.1N will be banned from sale will be decided on the 9th.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881147)

The 10.1N has front-facing speakers, so I'd actually prefer it.

Re:Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1N are nearly identical (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883123)

I think I prefer the look of the 10.1N myself. It stands out... though it does look kind of like a Toshiba or Acer Android tablet... hope they don't have a court case in the works.

Groan (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880353)

...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.

But borrow ideas from Apples! No no no no!

Hypocrites.

Re:Groan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881649)

Samsung aren't artists.

Re:Groan (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881827)

...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.

That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. "Little minds copy, great artists steal. "

"Great artists steal" means that great artists pick up ideas that float around everywhere, and run with them, and create something exciting and new. Little minds look at the iPad and try to make a cheap copy. Great artists look at Xerox Parc, see a company with some ideas that isn't doing anything with those ideas, and takes it, runs with it, and creates something new that wasn't there before. Hence Lisa, Macintosh, iPhone, iPad.

Samsung isn't stealing ideas. Stealing ideas means you have to invest lots of talent to go from idea to a product. They copy design; that's just so much easier.

The awful thing is that these guys are actually capable of creating great designs themselves; I've got a Samsung TV, and a Samsung colour laser printer, and they both look beautiful. But some idiot in upper management probably told them not to design a tablet themselves but to copy Apple. Result: Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits, _plus_ one of their best customers very very keen to leave them if at all possible.

Stupid (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880359)

One company selling overpriced gadget is suing another company selling overpriced gadget. In two years all their infringments will be resolved by everyone buying Chinese $100 full-featured tablets.

But they do... (2, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880405)

A few days ago, I was in Best Buy looking for a new external hard drive. While I was trying to get over the insane price markups, a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest [notebookcheck.net] models [notebookcheck.net], and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete replicas of their products, but the "nods" they include in their designs are pretty obvious. Not a bad thing when you consider the technological advancements they provide with their clone-killers, but not surprising when Apple throws down the legal gauntlet as a response.

Re:But they do... (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880847)

If you go to Korea, you'll see tons of replicant merchandise for sale locally. The problem for Apple is that no matter how successful they are in pushing design patents in Europe and the US, the vast majority of the world's population will be inundated with clone merchandise which Apple will never see a red cent of. Do you think the Korean/Chinese/Indian/smaller player governments will do anything concrete about this? Of course not. Also, patents run out and get invalidated.

Fighting with Samsung like this is a delaying tactic. It's a losing game for them. Anyone not shorting Apple after Jobs' passing is missing the boat.

Re:But they do... (5, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880933)

Anyone that has good working vision can see that Samsung, more or less, copies Apple's designs wholesale. They might not be complete replicas of their products, but the "nods" they include in their designs are pretty obvious.

Take a look at this Samsung product [engadget.com]. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.

There are certain basic concepts which recur over and over in product designs. Black looks good, certain things look better flat rather than curved, make the flat thing shiny for bonus points, a border around the main area of focus (screen/photo) helps isolate it from the background, a chrome/metal trim along the edge makes a good highlight. The only thing that's changed is that suddenly Apple is claiming that they own these basic age-old design concepts and nobody else is allowed to use them in certain types of new products.

Re:But they do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881859)

Show a picture of the side or rear of the device [everythingusb.com] and it ceases to look anything like an iPad. Samsung has a long history of ripping off designs from other companies. RIM previously sued Samsung [cnet.com] over a BlackBerry knockoff that Samsung endearingly called the BlackJack [digitalworldtokyo.com]. Whether or not you agree such copying is wrong, legally or morally, there's no denying that Samsung borrows quite heavily from the designs of other companies and has done so for quite some time.

Re:But they do... (4, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881993)

Show a picture of the side or rear of the device and it ceases to look anything like an iPad.

That's the rear of a different Samsung digital picture frame. I wasn't able to find pictures of the rear of the 2006 model, but here's the rear of the 2008 version (in white) [engadget.com]. As you can see, aside from the stand poking out the back, the relative thickness, and radius of the curvature, it looks very much like the original iPad.

Anyhow, the point wasn't that Samsung had released an iPad before the iPad. The point was that the design elements Apple is claiming ownership of in tablet-space were widely used long before the iPad existed.

Re:But they do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38882169)

I dunno, seems a bit intellectually dishonest since you're ignoring what Samsung was doing with tablets. Sure, the iPad and the digital picture frame look alike but that's still not a tablet and Samsung had no plans of offering a tablet with that form factor.

Here's a handheld tablet (minitablet) of Samsung's from 2006: http://news.cnet.com/Samsung-unfolds-Origami-tablet-in-stores/2100-1044_3-6085406.html
Small pictures but you can easily see what form factor Samsung had in mind for a handheld tablet. It's not even close to an iPad or any other modern tablet.

Here's another tablet of Samsung's from 2006: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/11/samsungs-720td-17-inch-tablet-display/
Samsung didn't even consider a tablet as something handheld, instead using the moniker minitablet as seen above. More similar to an iPad than the minitablet but clear differences with size, weight, bezel controls, and a stand.

You'd think it would be an obvious progression from the second link to the Galaxy Tab but, nope, Samsung had to wait for Apple to release the iPad before realizing that, releasing the Galaxy tab months later after the iPad had become successful.

Re:But they do... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881027)

its a thin black laptop everyone stop and bow to apple, look at a Gateway NV, or a Dell Inspiron R or even Z series, how about a Toshiba Portégé, they OBVIOUSLY ripped off apple

Re:But they do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881747)

A foolish statement by a fool!
The products you mentioned don't even look like the Macbook, but the Samsung laptop from the OP DOES!

Re:But they do... (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881037)

I forgot to add:

a very svelte-looking laptop caught the corner of my eye. It was one of Samsung's newest models, and it was beautiful. Maybe a little too beautiful, as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

The MBP is not the origin of that svelte, flat look. This was the laptop I owned [lenzg.net] in 2000.

Re:But they do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881737)

...as it reminded me up, down and center of the MacBook Pro it was obviously trying to compete with.

So what?

Here's what I don't get: Apple fans will repeatedly say how superior OS X and iOS to, well, every competing equivalent. If it's so superior, is there really ANY chance that a customer looking for Apple stuff will mistakenly buy a Samsung product? Wouldn't the OS stand on its own merits?

That Samsung copies the styling cues of Apple is obvious even to me, but you know what they say... imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all. So why is Apple (and its fans) in such a tizzy about the design issue? Is this some unacknowledged fear that Apple products can't stand competition on their own strengths?

I guess what I'm wondering is: are Apple products ACTUALLY better on pure functionality, in which case Apple should have nothing to fear from imitators, or is this admission that marketing, looks, and perception have a bigger impact on consumers than most Apple fans would have you believe?

But I guess the opposite applies too: Can Samsung/Winodws/Android not stand on its own merits too? :)

Re:But they do... (1)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881861)

The shitty keyboard on that thing definitely looks MacBook-like. Additionally, the power button is in a similar position. Other than that, I wouldn't say that looks even remotely like my MacBook.

--Jeremy

Re:But they do... (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882827)

Hmm. Looks like my laptop - which is neither a Samsung nor a Mac - except thinner.

Prior art (1)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881805)

If Clark and Kubrick were still alive they'd sue both Apple and Samsung since both are clearly knockoffs of their original featureless black obelisk.

Re:Prior art (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882599)

Actually, no, there was a tablet computer in the movie "2001" that looked just like an iPad. That's prior art.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881915)

I only came in here to see butthurt basement dweller rage. Carry on.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38882109)

I don't understand why people get so worked up about lawsuits between big companies. It's not like Samsung is the little underdog here. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation, they can take care of themselves. This is just business. Samsung is somewhat more "inspired" by other products than most companies, and that nets them the odd lawsuit. So what, they've built that into their cost of doing business. And yet nerds all over the place take it like a personal affront. Oh no, big bad apple is picking on little ol innocent Samsung that can't defend itself.

Where Samsung have factories in Europe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38882891)

this is stupid! why don't we ban all cars, as they're all on wheels - and some dush thousands years ago invented it. This is not abut Apple this is about Samsung, what you have to ask yourself is where Samsung have factories in Europe? And the answer would be - who's economy "nazis" want to hurt - simple isn't it?!

Should be easy enough for Samsung (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882923)

Surely they can just claim to have ripped the design off directly from Star Trek: TNG, like Apple did?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...