×

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!

U.S. Judge Grants Apple Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the too-pad-roddenberry-never-patented-the-padd dept.

Patents 498

Bill Dimm writes "Apple scores a win against Samsung over a design patent. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling granting Apple's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. She wrote, 'Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products. ... While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

498 comments

People must be blind.. (5, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | about 2 years ago | (#40463145)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

People must be copying.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463233)

What's "innovative" about the Galaxy tab 10.1?

Re:People must be copying.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463245)

Perhaps you missed the ".1", that's a pretty innovative bit at the end there.

That judge is an Obama appointee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463393)

Lucy H. Koh is an Obama appointee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh [wikipedia.org]

She became a US District Judge after been recommended by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463413)

I'm a democrat but I'm starting to look forward to Romney.

Re:People must be blind.. (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463235)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design.

Re:People must be blind.. (4, Insightful)

SvnLyrBrto (62138) | about 2 years ago | (#40463337)

> you should come up with an example that doesn't
> involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a
> competitor's design.

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Re:People must be blind.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463629)

Apple already spent 10 years suing Microsoft over "look-and-feel". Now they're IP butt-buddies and share patents and other bodily fluids.

Re:People must be blind.. (3, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#40463873)

"Apple's not suing Microsoft"

'Duh, you have any idea the patent portfolio they share?' so asketh the shareholder.

Why do you need an example? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463339)

You're a slashdotter, I assume you've read recent articles. If you haven't, here's a link: http://apple.slashdot.org/tag/patents [slashdot.org]

I counted at least 10 examples on the first page alone.

Re:Why do you need an example? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463381)

Why do you need an example?

You're confused because you didn't read my post.

Re:Why do you need an example? (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#40463885)

"If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

You're confused because those same 'design ticks' are not unique in any fucking way and are a natural expectation in most things. Would you want an iPhone with corners that stabbed you? No? That's pretty fucking obvious. Certain OS design parts might be infringing, but the PHYSICAL part is total bullshit and you fucking know it, you apologist.

Re:Why do you need an example? (4, Interesting)

zaphod777 (1755922) | about 2 years ago | (#40463949)

Especially when they are going after HTC for things like contextual menus. "Oh that's a phone number would you like to call it?" or I see you have two browsers which would you like to open the link in and would you like it to be your default?". It's not like that shit hasn't been around fir years ... oh wait.

Re:Why do you need an example? (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | about 2 years ago | (#40464051)

It has been on the desktop for ages. The fact that it is now available on the mobile does NOT make it innovative or belonging to Apple.

Re:People must be blind.. (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463505)

If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design.

I really don't understand why my comment was modded down. The complaint is that IP Law is stifling innovation, right? There are plenty of examples of that happening, right right? Great. So what about in this context? Samsung is in trouble for copying the iPad. If Apple wins, Samsung has to change their design. And what do you call a change in design? Innovation!

Now you may have an issue with that statement. Fine, argue with it, maybe the word 'Insightful" will appear next to your post. But before you hit reply, I just have one question: If Samsung is just copying details of a successful product (as opposed to spending the time to try out ideas of their own that might... *gasp* .. come up with an unexpected benefit that the consumer will like..), how does that lead to innovation? This is a serious question, I mean the Tab wasn't even cheaper than the iPad.

Re:People must be blind.. (3, Interesting)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#40463653)

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463659)

It runs android, its another tablet and is made buy a company that publishes the kernell source although it may not seem so inovative OI would rather develop for that tablet than for a company that if they decide they don't like my product I can do nothing. A company that has back doors to apple yet if I jail brake the PAD they brick it or try to take me to court. AM sorry but no competition does stiffle inovation. The funny thing is that most chips and IP that matter for the tablet is samsungs the OS is partially opened since its a BSD derivative and then people complain about rounded corner this is retarded and any one that says other wise is either an idiot or can not think for themselfs. Banana

Re:People must be blind.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463817)

If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design.

Well Apple copied black bezel and rounded corners on a tablet computing device from here [techcrunch.com] so that knocks a couple of your precious Apple's 'innovations' off the list.

Re:People must be blind.. (5, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | about 2 years ago | (#40463257)

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463273)

Thank you, glad somebody caught that.

Re:People must be blind.. (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463281)

Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor ...

This isn't a patent case, try to keep up. ;)

I'm confused (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40463335)

Since when was an injunction based on a design patent not a patent case?

Re:I'm confused (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463343)

Since a patent is not a design patent. Go read the article.

Re:I'm confused (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463463)

Really? You're going to try to be that pedantic?

Even though the laws that cover both patents and design patents... are called... wait for it.... patent law?

Or even better, since you read the article, where in the judgement itself does it make this "critical" distinction?

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed onthe merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that thebalance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Courtfound that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon theD’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’sinfringing conduct.
See
December 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminaryinjunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references.
  Id
. at40-45, 50.The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm withrespect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent

They seem to keep referring to it as a patent....

Re:I'm confused (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463523)

Really? You're going to try to be that pedantic?

Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.

Re:I'm confused (3, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#40463717)

Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.

Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?

I'm diffused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463541)

And the law calls things like copyright, patents, trade secrets, "intellectual PROPERTY". Now do we want to go down that road...again?

Wake up and smell the roses. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463483)

You keep insinuating that people replying to your posts don't know how to read. I would postulate that you don't know how to think.

They're both called patents, and they're both based upon intellectual property.

Re:Wake up and smell the roses. (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463555)

They're both called patents, and they're both based upon intellectual property.

Can you tell the difference between a man and woman? They both have the word 'man' in their names.

Now if we're done pretending to be intellectual here, the difference is that if this were a patent dispute, this would be about preventing technology from being used. This has nothing to do with a small inventor, unless of course he goes to Samsung's lengths to duplicate an existing product.

You keep insinuating that people replying to your posts don't know how to read.

I wouldn't have to explain this if you had read about it the first thirty times it had been discussed on this site over the last few months.

Re:Wake up and smell the roses. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463813)

Can you tell the difference between a man and woman? They both have the word 'man' in their names.

Sounds like you can only tell from bitter experience.

Re:I'm confused (4, Informative)

flatulus (260854) | about 2 years ago | (#40463561)

R'd the F.A. I don't see anywhere it says that a design patent is not a patent.

OTOH, there is USPTO which disagrees with you when they say:

"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

There are three types of patents. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. ... Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."

Note the three types: design, utility, and plant. Design is most assuredly a type of patent.

Re:People must be blind.. (5, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463417)

Not a patent case?

On December 2, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Apple’s motion for a preliminaryinjunction. Apple sought an injunction based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’sDesign Patent Nos. D618,677 (“the D’677 Patent”), D593,087 (“the D’087 Patent”), D504,889(“the D’889 Patent”), and based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s U.S. Patent No.7,469,381 (“the ’381 Patent”).

Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.

This is just more evidence of how the system is broken. I can see the difference between an iPad and Tab. It's fucking ridiculous to own "rounded edges" and bullshit like that.

It's so completely obvious that you would want a tablet shaped like that, and to be thin.

You asked for an example of where a company was not "lazily" duplicating designs. Well, I would argue that is not duplicating something tremendously fucking obvious.

That's like somebody being able to say with a straight face that is non obvious to make paper, that you want to write, on, "like all flat and shit".

Yes, your honor. We feel we should be protected and be the only ones to have flat paper. Thank you.

Re:People must be blind.. (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463469)

Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.

That would be because you see the word 'patent' and not the word 'design'.

From the f'n article that you and the idiot with the mod point didn't read:

Reached for comment, Apple reiterated the same message itâ(TM)s been hammering at since this debacle began. âoeItâ(TM)s no coincidence that Samsungâ(TM)s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,â spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. âoeThis kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as weâ(TM)ve said many times before, we need to protect Appleâ(TM)s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.â

Go look up what a design patent is. It's a point that's been hammered into the ground only a million times in the comments section here since late last year.

You keep digging yourself deeper. (2)

intellitech (1912116) | about 2 years ago | (#40463521)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

One, it's still a patent. Two, people are disagreeing with the nature of granting a patent for something incredibly obvious.

Re:You keep digging yourself deeper. (4, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 2 years ago | (#40463551)

It's not really a patent. Much closer to a trademark. Design patents are what stops all the other drink companies from selling cola in those distinctive Coke bottles. Doesn't mean that Coke has a patent on glass bottles, or on bottles with rounded bits, although I'm sure variations of both those are part of the design patent. They have a specific design that is protected.

Apple does not have a patent (or even claim to have a patent) on rounded corners. They have a design patent on a specific design that happens to include rounded corners.

* WHOOSH * (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463583)

It's still regulated by IP LAW.

What the hell are people smoking tonight?

Re:* WHOOSH * (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463649)

It's still regulated by IP LAW.

This isnt: "IP law sucks cos nobody else can make a tablet!" What you're saying is: "IP law sucks because it won't let Samsung closely copy the casing to the iPad!"

Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

Re:* WHOOSH * (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463729)

Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

Fuck Yes.

There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.

If Apple wants legal protection, they can innovate inside the fucking casing. Better battery life, sharper and higher PPI screens, better touchscreen, faster processors, etc.

Or as part of the casing with stronger glass, lighter materials, etc.

Fuck. With your support of their bullshit the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.

Re:* WHOOSH * (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#40463829)

the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.

No, only eggshell and off-teal. Apple wouldn't use 0xFFFFFF! Don't you know anything about design?!?

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463525)

You're being pedantic.

It's a patent case that is covered by patent law. Just because it is a subsection, species, flavor, or what-the-fuck-ever kind of patent does not make it wrong to refer to it as a patent case, or patent law.

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463545)

But it's still a patent. There is no need to show that the defendant actually copied your design, as in copyright. Nor is there any need to show that consumers would be confused by the design, as with trademark.

Design patents are patents. You come up with something unique and non-obvious (as judged by some examiner in Northern Virginia), and then get a government monopoly prohibiting anyone else from making that thing.

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463701)

I say bullshit, apple stole the iphone from LG does people in the US never heard of a prada phone. Well it looks almost exactly to an apple 4g. Anyway this is bunch of BS never buying any apple products ever just out of principle. Are people here not tech savy do they no know that the differnce between a mac book and any other pc is essentially a bit of design and the OS. The pad is a big Iphone that most of the hw patents are owned by samsung and arm, and qualcom and other apple just puts it together and tries to make it look nice. Wow so much hard work to make crap.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 2 years ago | (#40463899)

Are you telling me LG is completely disinterested in getting a small part of 100B Apple has in the bank? I find it more likely that the underlying concepts were not patentable, LG botched the patent process or the patents were in fact duly licensed.

Re:People must be blind.. (1, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 2 years ago | (#40463527)

Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Design Patents have almost nothing to do with regular patents. They are much more along the lines of Trademarks. They are very, very, very specific and almost impossible to enforce.

The reason you don't know anything about Design Patents? They almost never make it anywhere near a court, let alone a news story. It's almost impossible to violate them on purpose, let alone by accident. That rounded corners thing? That's not an 'OR' operator, it's an 'AND' operator. For a design patent to get to court it has to violate damn near every one of dozens of specific claims, and missing any one can invalidate the entire thing.

Re:People must be blind.. (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463677)

It doesn't matter. I understand the difference, and what you are saying, but nonetheless, it does not matter.

It is still a patent, and covered under patent law. Making the specific distinction that it is a design patent is not actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.

That poster that was trying to invalidate an argument simply because it did not make that fine distinction that you hold to be so important.

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

What part of that does not cover both "regular" patents and design patents? That observation equally applies to both.

I disagree with providing legal protections for most elements of design patents because in this case I see quite a number of them to be functional and not purely ornamental.

Even more amazing, with your observation about the or/and operator, is that it could really infringe on all the claims at the same time. I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#40463887)

Welcome to slashdot, where a post that lazily claims that patents are "just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system" qualifies as "+5, insightful" and that "It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents" is not laughed off the stage.

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463275)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Galaxy Tab is in what way innovative?

Consider this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463403)

What if early life had to trade DNA patents and fend off lawsuits in order to evolve? The case would be that a single entity would have less of a chance evolving into an adequately adapted form of life, while a multitude of entities following similar paths may diverge as necessary or possible in order to adapt / function.

My general feeling is that, if this was the case, life would have died out on our planet long ago.

Re:Consider this. (-1, Troll)

devleopard (317515) | about 2 years ago | (#40463597)

Samsung isn't innovating. They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads. There's plenty of innovation going on in the tablet world. Many of these products are of course dead or dying in the marketplace, not because of a design patent injunction, but because no one was buying any. This injunction affects Galaxy Tabs that look like iPads, not the next great tablet device that will do something so much different or better that it destroys the iPad's market share.

Re:Consider this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463681)

Samsung has created a ton of great hardware innovations, which is why Apple is a huge customer of theirs. Their design department might be completely uncreative, but let's not pretend the company doesn't know it's shit.

Re:Consider this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463859)

Samsung isn't innovating. They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad,

Which in turn looks a lot like a Samsung photo frame [ignoring the GUI] - and pretty much the same elements have been around for centuries in non elecronic tablets

Re:Consider this. (1)

serbanp (139486) | about 2 years ago | (#40463977)

You should have your eyes checked. If you can't distinguish between an iPad and a G.T., you have pretty shitty vision acuity.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463825)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Galaxy Tab is in what way innovative?

And inwhich way is the iPad [case] innovative if you look at what was before - like the Samsung photo frame? Comparison shot [dailytech.com]

Re:People must be blind.. (-1, Troll)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#40463299)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Well, I guess it's just too bad for Samsung that they weren't innovative enough to use a different radius on the corners, or use a white accent or logo, or a different color, or something different rather than the 25 design details that they copied exactly.

Re:People must be blind.. (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40463577)

It stifles innovation because it makes it difficult for companies to release a product due to silly, stupid, and meaningless design restrictions that are so fucking obvious it's painful.

Remember, the whole point of patent law in the first place is not to provide ownership of an idea, but to provide a constant stream of valuable knowledge and ideas into the Public Domain.

Most of Apple's design patents that relate to the aesthetics of a device are just stupid. Anybody could have thought of it, it is incredibly obvious, and would you really want to do it differently?

Rounded edges. Stupid. Duh. Yes, of course we would want rounded edges.

Thin. Well yeah....

Screen being edge to edge. What? No way. I want a huge fucking border around mine.

In 500 years are people really going to be celebrating Apple for some of this shit as if it was really contributing to our wealth of knowledge?

"Ahhh... yes children. Gather around. Do you know why were on this colony now, hundreds of light years away from the home planet? It was because a company called Apple made rounded edges."

Re:People must be blind.. (-1)

quantaman (517394) | about 2 years ago | (#40463937)

Most of Apple's design patents that relate to the aesthetics of a device are just stupid. Anybody could have thought of it, it is incredibly obvious, and would you really want to do it differently?

If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they? The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious, and they're putting in some real work and talent.

That being said I don't feel that design is worthy of patent protection, your reward for having the best design is that when competitors rip it off consumers remember you're just ripping it off.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40464003)

You're being deliberately obtuse. You don't like patents. Fine. They're rather poorly implemented of late. The US patent Office needs to get some cojones and start denying useless patents. However, you're banging around trying to make this a patent case as in 'inventing' something. This is about design. It's SOLE purpose is to prevent somebody from BLATENTLY COPYING a DESIGN so consumers are not misled into buying a fake something.

The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces. The Samsung adverts had IPad icons. The argument is that a consumer could well pick up a Galaxy tablet thinking they were going to walk out with a real iPad. Nothing else. Whether or not they actually manages to copy the entire design (and recall, the appropriate Boolean operator is 'AND') is up to the judge to decide.

FWIW, I don't think it's worth an injunction. But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.

Save your bike for a real software patent dispute. And Samsung could just hire a couple of MacAir toting, Latte sipping unemployed designers that certainly must fill the seats of Starbucks everywhere to come up with a friggin DIFFERENT DESIGN. It can't be all that hard. Even Dell can do it.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40463491)

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Most people are sheep. They only see what they can buy, not what that seller has prevented them from buying.

Re:People must be blind.. (0)

iamacat (583406) | about 2 years ago | (#40463849)

You have to in fact be legally blind to equate Galaxy Tab to innovation. Samsung is a major established company. I bet they can afford some R&D to come up with a non-copycat product.

Re:People must be blind.. (1)

sharperguy (1065162) | about 2 years ago | (#40464001)

> While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court

Won't someone PLEASE think of the consumer?

Meet Apple, the new Microsoft... (2, Insightful)

NoGenius (976447) | about 2 years ago | (#40463183)

Internal Memo

Attn: Staff

When the pipeline of innovation dries up, call in lawyers.

Steve Balmer, CEO, Apple, Inc.

Re:Meet Apple, the new Microsoft... (1, Informative)

devleopard (317515) | about 2 years ago | (#40463515)

You're absolutely right. Since the lawsuit was filed in April 2011, Apple has come up with absolutely nothing innovative.

Apple scores a win against Samsung (4, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#40463195)

Well, does somebody keep the scores? How many points so far for both sides?

I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40463347)

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (2)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#40463441)

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

Followed shortly thereafter by "Samsung goes out of business due to massive overcapacity." Followed closely by "Sharp stock up over 100% due to new contracts with Apple [macrumors.com] ."

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40463625)

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

And Samsung shareholders will go ballistic, literally that they're turning down sales from their #1 customer (Apple beat Sony in parts purchased from Samsung).

The other effect is a greatly distorted market - with the exception of the A4/A5 processor (though TSMC or Intel is supposed to help out), everything else is multiply-sourced. The NAND flash and RAM, especially. All that would happen is that Toshiba and the like suddenly get the orders and make money while Samsung is stuck with excess stock they have to clearance out. In fact, you'll see arbitrage happening - Toshiba etc. will see that simply relabel Samsung parts and cash in on the difference.

Also, all those multibillion dollar fabs like the one in Austin Tx that Samsung opened? Idled. And when a fab is idled, it's losing tons of money because the equipment is depreciating fast and will turn into a multibillion dollar sinkhole. Running fabs is horribly expensive and if it's not running at basically 100%, it's losing money. If nothing else, few companies can afford a fab - Apple might just pick one up on the cheap because of it.

It's a love-hate relationship that's probably giving Samsung more angst than anything because they're pitting two divisions of Samsung against each other - the semiconductor division which makes tons of money making parts for Apple versus the mobile division, which makes money (but likely less since it's spread out over more phones).

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (1)

devleopard (317515) | about 2 years ago | (#40463651)

When it was rumored that Samsung had lost the Apple contract (note, this was last month, over a year after this lawsuit was filed):

It is claimed that Samsung lost $10 billion of its market value following news that Apple switched suppliers. Wednesday’s decline was the biggest daily fall in nearly four years for Samsung.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3358556 [macworld.co.uk]

This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference [macworld.co.uk] that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40463371)

I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.

No they aren't. Customers benefit from an endless system of appeals, cumbersome and byzantine laws regarding patents, trademarks and copyrights -- it saves them from having to buy a competitor's product, the poor bastards. The free market is dangerous and must be heavily regulated... unless it's labor, in which case we need as little regulation as possible because we have to remain competitive with third world sweat shops.

Everything you buy here is cheaper everywhere else, and it's because you're not working hard enough for your crumbs, Citizen.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung (3, Insightful)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 2 years ago | (#40463745)

Well, does somebody keep the scores? How many points so far for both sides?
I.e. who's wining?

Lawyers: 9310293 -- Humans: 0

If you cannot compete... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463217)

If you cannot compete, you litigate.

"Boohoo, someone else is making money..."

Apple is no longer interesting. The only thing interesting about Apple is the fact that OS X has the *nix goodness under the hood.

The last thing that interested me was BeOS. Ahead of its time and DOA.

I remember having a Be box (commodity hardware with BeOS installed) at work in 2000. It rocked. I hope Haiku becomes a success, but it seems that if things are not mainstream, they die on the vine no matter how good they are.

Re:If you cannot compete... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463255)

"Boohoo, someone else is making money by cloning my product in so much detail that their own layers can't tell them apart."

FTFY, although I didn't bother with the rest of your post.

Re:If you cannot compete... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40463365)

The lawyers can't figure out the product with the word "SAMSUNG" on the front is not an iPad? Or was the photo-shopped out?

Re:If you cannot compete... (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40463445)

The word "Samsung" is not on the front of the Tab. And, for the record, they weren't shown a photo, they were held in front of them at a distance of a whopping ten feet away.

Re:If you cannot compete... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40464033)

Yes, because I always buy my consumer gear without getting any closer than ten feet :-)

Re:If you cannot compete... (1)

devleopard (317515) | about 2 years ago | (#40463539)

For every 1000 iPads I see in the wild, I see maybe 2 or 3 Galaxy Tabs. (Phones are of course an entirely different story.)

So while I agree with

If you cannot compete, you litigate.

"Boohoo, someone else is making money..."

as being bad, that "someone" isn't Samsung, and Apple isn't a company that isn't competing. Hell, the only reason why there is a Galaxy Tab exists is due to the iPad's success.

Does it really matter (4, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | about 2 years ago | (#40463229)

Does it really matter at this point?

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is over a year old at this point and probably not selling in large volume any longer. Other competing Android tablets have already supplanted it in nearly every area and it will probably be replaced by Samsung's next offering in the near future. Unless this ruling also makes it a lot easier for Apple to get an injunction against any of Samsung's future tablet products, I can't see this making a difference at all.

I haven't read the ruling yet, but in several past cases, usually the injunction prevents Samsung from importing additional product. That would mean that inventory already in the US and in the hands of retailers could continue to be sold so long as Apple doesn't pursue legal action against retails, which they won't as many of those retailers also likely sell Apple's products. Given that Samsung will probably have a new tablet out soon, I can't see them even caring if they can't restock supplies of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

I'd be interested in hearing the full implications from this ruling from someone more versed in the relevant laws. Is this victory as hollow as I think it is, or is there actually some value in this for Apple?

Re:Does it really matter (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40463279)

Does it really matter at this point?

Well, yeah. If you're over there on Wall Street doing your little thing, it matters a hell of a lot.

Re:Does it really matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463305)

It matters because future Samsung products will be designed to not look so identical to an iPad that their own lawyers can't even tell them apart (in court they couldn't tell the difference between their own products and an iPad).

Re:Does it really matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463827)

maybe apple should stop making their iPads operate in the exact same manner internally ... after all samsung makes all the hardware for the ipad

usual apple shrill, "we invented black, and rounded rectangles, suck our dicks" even your own dead jesus was preaching about how rounded rectangles were everywhere when the original finder was being developed, and ge golly fuck we had black before apple as well, whats the infringement, seems like god damn plain knowledge to me ... shit a 5 year old can "design" a black rounded rectangle. Course they can also think for themselves at that point and no be a sheeple like you.

Re:Does it really matter (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 2 years ago | (#40463431)

IANAL, however I believe the significance of this is that it sets a new, dangerous precedent.

Re:Does it really matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463809)

Of making companies develop their own products?

U.S. District Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463239)

"United States District Court for the Northern District of California" - Wow that's going to have a impact - NOT!!!

Re:U.S. District Judge (2)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#40463263)

"United States District Court for the Northern District of California" - Wow that's going to have a impact - NOT!!!

That's a federal court. The ban is nationwide. So yes, it will have an impact--to the extent that Samsung is not already transitioning to a new product that doesn't try to look almost exactly like the iPad (10.2? 10.1 with a white border?).

Re:U.S. District Judge (2)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 2 years ago | (#40463563)

They launched the Tab 2 line in April, so this injunction is basically a nonissue at this point in and of itself. It's that it may influence any motion to bar the sales of the newer model.

Re:U.S. District Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463401)

??

Once apple posts the bond (which will be shortly) it will be illegal to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. So, yeah, it's going to have an impact. Samsung, can and will appeal the ruling but until the case is tried again in a higher court, this ruling is law.

I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463323)

Would judges rule accept and rely on this patent/IP system if those companies were selling health equipment/technology.
Would they be so close minded (or open pockets) to deliberately forbid the technology to save/improve lives and perhaps affordably compared to previous exorbitant or very expensive treatments?

It's not the case, but, who are they and who are we to allow them to have such behavior and bow down and obey? Enough. Im glad places like china give the USA the middle finger when it comes to patents and IP copyrights(but just in this regard, china is horrid for any other example to aspire to).

Situation Sum-up... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463573)

If you can't compete, litigate.

Uh oh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40463733)

Uh oh! Looks like I made the wrong choice

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8146/7452721532_be0086634e_z.jpg

I'll have to go back to the Toshiba Handi-Pad.

Big surprise! (3, Insightful)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | about 2 years ago | (#40463737)

Wow, big surprise!

American judge awards American company an injunction against an overseas competitor. Again. We (the rest of the world) never saw that coming...

And yes, I know to Americans this comment is going to seem trolly but I am willing to risk karma over it because this is precisely how these cases are viewed, outside your borders. For right or wrong, we see it that the US controlled ITC and US court system are used to prop up US companies against competition.

Prior art (1)

matt_martin (159394) | about 2 years ago | (#40463811)

Looking at some (not all) of these claims, I guess I just have to say "ahem, cough, PALM, cough, cough, cough, PALM, ahem".

Innovation. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 2 years ago | (#40463945)

Apple offers such an incredible line of innovative products that they need to rest to lawsuits to maintain their edge. What it all sounds to me like is a company that realizes their edge is slipping, everyone is catching up and they aren't confident in their ability to continue coming up with new ideas.

I'm tired of everyone and their grandmother copying Apple's design. Sure, they've got nice looking products, but they're far from being the pinnacle of industrial design. If anything the Apple look has grown stale. But seeking a patent on design? And worse, actually having it granted? If every company that ever copied someone else's design were to be sued there would be total chaos.

If Apple's management is that concerned about copycats perhaps it's high time they lit a fire under the design department's ass and got them doing something a bit more innovative.

Samsung is ahead anyhow (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#40463981)

At this point, I think that Samsung is a lot farther ahead than it was a year ago.

A year ago, I went to Korea. People there are fairly gaga over devices. What did I see, fricking iPhones EVERYWHERE.
Went back this year. What did I see. Galaxy Note has become the device-de-jour

iDevices are still considered "hip" on this side of the ocean, but the competitors are starting to get serious traction as well. Perhaps Samsung won't be able to hit iPhones profit-price-point, but with competitive pricing, they'll still make a killing.

Even my wife was a firm iPhone lover up until this year. Now she's been eyeing up my SG2 and wishes she'd gotten a tab (seems very suited to women as the size is purse-friendly than a regular smartphone or tablet).

With the GS3 coming and many others with tech that ahead of the iPhone, Android doesn't have any *need* to look similar, and will do better for being unique.

p.s. beveled raised edges beat rounded corners anyhow. A screen falling face-down is less likely to crack the screen. Although the newer OLED screens seem pretty resilient anyhow (dropped mine and it bounced screen-side off the corner of a metal filing cabinet, only damage was a bump in the anti-scratch film).

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...