Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

A German court has granted Apple a preliminary injunction in its ongoing patent dispute with Samsung, effectively halting all sales and advertisement of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the European Union. The ruling is on the grounds of community design infringement by Samsung, or what Apple calls the Galaxy Tab 10.1's imitation of the iPad 2, and does not have anything to do with specific hardware or software patents.

German trademark rulings have a multinational effect, according to EU law, impacting all fellow members with the exception of the Netherlands, where patent laws differ. Samsung must immediately remove all Galaxy Tabs from store shelves and halt all advertising, just a week after the device’s official European launch. The court’s decision is a heavy blow to Samsung, who has been fighting Apple’s accusations of patent infringement across the globe. An appeal by Samsung will take four weeks to file and must be heard by the original ruling judge.

Source: financial-informer.de; via FOSS Patents

 

Reader comments

German court orders Samsung to halt Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales and advertisements, will affect most of EU

152 Comments

This story just makes me sick... Why does business have to end up like this? As consumers we should all be upset at all this BS going on in the tech industry... Everyone suing everyone and trying to kill off competition.... How does getting Sammy products getting halted help consumers? . . . shit is just lame man..

EDIT: Yes I'll be copying and pasting this comment on everyblog... This is getting ridiculous.

Let's look at it rationally for a moment. Apple comes out with an innovative product that consumers really love. Other companies simply mimic the software and hardware to produce a competing product. This isn't competing, it's more like lurking and waiting to copy Apple's next product. If Apple can stop this copying behavior, it will force competitors to really innovate and not only create derivatives, but products that really stand out. Overall, this will benefit consumers because of the greater choice of truly innovative products. Instead of one company, Apple, leading in innovation. All companies will play a bigger part. 

Whats going on now is crazy and these companies should stop following Apple's every move and start doing their own thing. it's shameful and ridiculous. 

I guess all the car manufactures should have been sued by Ford? Do you think apple made the first smart phone? Hint: they didn't. That is shameful and ridiculous. How about Apple stop copying other companies. Have you heard of Xerox?

Of course Apple didn't invent the smartphone, but they did it RIGHT!
Do you truly believe you'd have ur android phone today if it wasn't for apple? Look at the Android project in 2006, it looked a lot like a blackberry, but after the iPhone all smartphone makers changed their design and OS (RIM didn't change too much, but how is it working for them?). You have to agree that's the same thing with tablets. How many people did you know with tablets before the iPad? How many do you know now?
Apple didn't copy Xerox, they STOLE the idea (Steve Jobs always said they were shameless to STEAL ideas [not copy]).
Why was it stealing? Because Xerox trashed the idea, they didn't think it was going to work, but apple liked it and made it work. I don't think apple should be the only one making phones and tablets, but I really want other brands to innovate. Motorola isn't getting sued because the xoom does not look like the iPad, but the Galaxy Tab does! People usually mistake the tab with the iPad. Samsung's touchwiz, device images and packaging completely copies apple.

P.S. I'm not a fanboy, I just think what they're doing is right. I love iOS and I love WP7 (I like android, but I'm not a HUGE fan).

Do you think you would have iPhones if it wasn't for Palm? Do you think you would have iPads if not for original tablet PCs.? So it was ok for Apple to take an idea for a product and try to produce something better, but it its not ok for other companies to take Apple's "idea" and try to produce something better? I think there is a word for someone like you and a company like Apple... Hypocrite.

PS: You truly aren't a fanboy... You just love their products and comment in the forums of their competitors whom you don't really like.

There's no hypocracy. Do you think there would be Palms if not for the Apple Newton? The Newton is also considered Apple's first tablet computer and this dates back to 1993. Copying is not innovating and It does nothing to advance the technology.

I understand the logic in seeing it that way, but the fact is that the tablet is just a screen with a battery. Screens are rectangles. Different aspect ratios perhaps, such as the iPad (4:3) and Galaxy Tab (16:10), but generally all rectangles. What can really change between designs? They are different colors, different sizes, the corners are rounded because who the hell wants sharp edges. The front is glossy black because it enhances the perceived contrast ratio. I just don't see where the line is drawn. The ipad is designed to be used in portrait view, galaxy tab in landscape. They run different operating systems, which is why this case should not exist. Should someone have claimed the right to the desktop tower? It doesn't make sense. Apple has become very hypocritical in the past few years and they are destroying their core belief. At this point, its just money to them.

What can really change between designs? Samsung's initial design resembled the Motorola Xoom, but after seeing the iPad 2, an executive from the company admitted that they would have to go back to the drawing board. The new design resembled the iPad 2. Do a search and see for yourself. There are almost unlimited design possibilities within the confines of the rectangular shape. Only laziness or cheating would force the products to look alike. I'm sure Samsung has IP that it would litigate over should the need arise. In this case, we should blame them for copying, but I see rational is out the door on this site. Too bad.

So why don't you post a couple of these "almost unlimited possibilities" of a design within a rectangle that is suitable for computing? Does every monitor have a rectangular shape, a screen for display and a stand? How come they just don't sue each other? Or how about Ford sue everyone for a design that has 4 tires, a steering wheel and gas powered engine? This stuff is getting insane. Apple wants to stop anything that is a smart phone that remotely resembles how smart phones have been operating since BEFORE they came out with the iPhone. Heck, with Apple's logic, Palm and Microsoft should have sued them into oblivion for putting out a phone with an operating system and a touch sensitive screen. The generic patents that Apple was granted cover a smart phone to bare basics for crying out loud like they invented it. They did not. They invented an ecosystem *around* a smart phone. Period.

You do realize that Mercedes Benz invented the automobile and not Ford? Ford is credited with creating the assembly line so cars could be available to the masses. That's innovation. The very same thing Apple is good at doing. Your analogy is too simplistic. It borders on being inane. Within the confines of the basic sedan design, we can easily identify different makes and models. The same can be true of tablets. The competition has to challenge themselves to differentiate their products. About a decade ago, Chrysler's Jeep devision sued General Motors over the design of the Hummer's grill. Not the overall design, just the grill! It goes to show how far companies will go to protect their trade dress.

When a company designs, or redesigns in the case of Samsung, their product to closely resemble a competing product, it's no accident! It's deliberate! They want their product to steal sales from their competitor, and when they get called out, they have only themselves to blame. You can make excuses for them all day long, that's your choice. As for me, it's clear as day that they changed the design to look like the iPad 2. One more thing, Apple's patents are for MultiTouch on a capacitive screen. That's the innovation. It didn't exist before.

Apple didn't come up with multi touch either it is inherent in the tech (capacitive touch) and was demonstrated when the tech was actually invented. Apple has a fewer patents on done of the screen interactions. (as far as inventing pinch to zoom as may think.... I saw that demonstrated in the movie Minority Report, 2001. So the movie would count as prior art...if they actually got a patent on that then the patent optical board wasn't paying attention. At the patent would fail on court). Besides making it simpler and thinner are trademarkable properties.

So Apple must feel good that they created the internet tablet. oh wait, they didn't. So then Apple must have made the first touch screen interface, no, they didn't do that either. Keep in mind the Ipad is just an enlarged Iphone. The Galaxy Tab has a tablet OS on it.
Apple innovates? iOS 5 may as well be called Iandroid. Drop down notifications, cloud player, come on!

You're holding Apple up on a pedestal of ignorance. I say this as someone that has owned dozens of Macs and have been using their products since the eighties and I make my living as a developer -- which includes iOS dev.

Apple did not invent the a rounded rectangle design for portable devices and they should never have been granted patent on it, which is what this suit is about.

You accues others of following Apple's every move, while clearly being ignorant to their own history of "borrowing" what they want and then calling it their own. Take a look at iOS 5's new features for starters, since it's relevant to now It uses Android notification system and BlackBerry Push email and this comes after Apple calls this year of the copycats.

Steve Jobs; "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Unfortunately the Apple legal team are equally shameless about suing other companies. Perhaps Apple's real imitation problem with Samsung is success; they really hate to see that.

We should apply this logic to everything. Imagine all of the innovative ways we would have to clean our teeth if we had 1 toothpaste manufacturer and 1 toothbrush manufacturer. Moreover, we as consumers would win due to the lack of competition and lack of choices in the supermarket.

Apple made "existing" technologies luxurious and appealing nothing more. Its funny how you believe what you just jotted down. Do some research on early handheld technologies and Apple is a few steps behind what has been done. Off topic Atari is thought of to be innovative, but look up odyssey magnevox phillips and nintendo....deny ignorance my friend

I don't know if you've had hands-on time with a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad/iPad2. They look nothing alike, aside form the fact that the iPads are heavier and thicker, the original iPad only coming in the brushed aluminum back stands out even more. The 10.1 and the iPad look nothing alike, in any way, shape, or form. The software? really? have you used Honeycomb? it looks nothing like iOS, even in touchwiz form.

We're discussing the blocking of the sales of a device, that has a different form factor 16:9 instead of 4:3. Completely different visuals and design of the software, they share no similarities aside from the fact that they both happen to be tablets. Apple is just pissed off that the 10.1 is a better tablet in the long run. The only argument that stands to reason, the only legitimate one, is that TouchWiz vaguely resembles the cartoony Apple iOS-esque look that you find on iPhone, iPad, and iTouch devices. That isn't even relevant if you look at the fact that LG's Android overlay uses a lot of very VERY similar icons and cartoony style that falls claim to the same likeness that TouchWiz does to iOS. Last time I checked, Apple isn't suing LG *yet, mind you, since they're suing everyone and their brother*. Which brings to fruition that this is an obvious attack against a company that is directly threatening their market share and income. You'd be bullshitting yourself if you could convince yourself of anything otherwise.

its a hard hit for all the consumers. competition is important, but this new patent/sue -trend makes me sick.
it would also wrong as well, if apple wasnt allowed to sell their devices.
these problems are way to less discussed in the media, also here in germany.

Am I mistaken if I seem to recall that if a patent is obtained in the US they cannot take a company to court in another country or continent due to different patenting laws and systems.

I damn sure know that Apple will not be able to pull this kind of bullshit off in the UK

Not happy to see this. I'm sure the appeal will go the other way. This is one thing that Motorola will never get sued for in regards to the Xoom. It looks absolutely nothing like the ipad. All Sammy needs to do is ship it with a different cover on the back.

This is a major unfortunate blow to Samsung and the perception of Android but let's keep the inflammatory F this F that to a minimum shall we? I'm sure Samsung and Google have a pile of lawyers all over the situation.

Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property. Can any of you even claim with a straight face that their iPhone and iPad products weren't immediately copied by almost every PC/mobile designer in the free World? If you don't protect developers and inventors from infringement, then there will be less incentive for them to develop/invent in the future.

Yeah this guy is a Steve Jobs lovin a-hole. IF you look at that picture, it looks a helluva lot more like a Galaxy Tab than an iPad, its like Apple did this just to cockblock Samsung. That bezel isn't nearly thick enough to be an iPad, it doesn't have a home button, and its not the right size.

OH B.S. they were stopped because of a black rectangle design, how many ways can one be made, Apple uses an old 4.3 format and Samsung uses a 10.9 widescreen....and so should all T.V.'s and monitor be stopped too....tell you what the iPhone looks alot like my winmo that i had well before the iPhone or even iPod was released...

Apple is just running scared the 10.1 Sammy is a much better product as well as Android is a better OS

By your logic only one entity (person, company, etc.) has the right to make a product. Only ONE chair, ONE car, ONE pen, ONE pencil, ONE mouse, ONE, keyboard, ONE phone, ONE piece of paper, ONE television.......

You CANNOT own a concept as generic as what Apple is claiming. If you can, then I hereby claim ownership of the word Epic; none of you may ever use this word again in any form that remotely looks similar. If you do, I will sue you.

But ppl do make things look different. There are millions of chair designs. All different, yet they do the exact same thing. There are thousands of cars, and each model has something that makes it that specific model. One clear example of not copying design is HTC, they have their own unique style, their phones scream HTC. Samsung's scream Apple.

Sure 4:3 screens are just the same as 16:9 screens...

And, if someday apple really wants removes the home button, well, they cannot do it anymore, android has done this already...

I can make and sell a replica of ANY product, different dimensions though. Are you saying that it's legal to do so?

And yea, if they want to remove the home button, they better be sure to still keep the logo on it, otherwise Apple will be sued if Samsung or Moto or another company has a trademark/copyright or design patent on that.

The Tab is not a replica. The elements that it shares with iPad (general shape, thinness, color) are too generic to patent.

I'm not the one who granted Apple anything. Samsung is infringing on Apple's design according to Apple, and soon we'll know if the law agrees.

You didn't grant Apple anything but you still defend their position. Don't try to back away now.

I said that because I don't have the legal expertise to say whether it's to generic, or whether a company should sue another. It's not my field. I defend their position because I do believe Samsung's products look too similar to Apple's.

For example, did Samsung really need to place an Al border around the screen? No, it could have been any other color. In fact, black is probably the best choice as it doesn't call attention to an erroneous detail. But they went ahead and put an Al border around the screen to make it look like an iDevice. Of course, I can't prove they had those intentions, it's just my opinion. The Tab's connector looks exactly like Apple's PROPRIETARY connector. A mini or micro USB is smaller, takes up less space, but they went with Apple's design. That just screams, "Hey [customers] look at us! We made an iPad. Buy it."

So tell me, what does Samsung bringing to the market by selling the Tab, choice? Of what, a brand? How do customers win by having 100 choices of the same device (I know they run different OS's)?? Who cares about a fraking brand, I just want a great product. I don't care who designs it or what it runs.

How different do the dimensions have to be? Do companies have to start submitting different sizes of rectangles with different angels or slopes to lock in their designs?
How different can a small rectangle be. It's like picture frame creators suing each other because their frames are within a tenth of an inch of each other. At what point is this accepted as ridiculous?

I have never mistaken a Samsung device for an Apple device; ever. My parents can't tell the difference between my DInc an iPhone.

It's about consumer education, not beating your competition through litigation.

I saw a TouchPad commercial and thought it was for a new iPad until the HP branding was up on the screen (admittedly, I wasn't paying much attention at the time); maybe Apple should petition to have HP stop making tablets, too... maybe they should just sue everyone so they're the only ones who can make thin rectangular devices whose front-facing surface area is primarily a display...

Simply ridiculous.

This was a point I was thinking about earlier. I like WebOS, but if anyone should be under fire for copying the iPad, it should be HP for the TouchPad. Granted, WebOS is the major difference, but the device itself could easily be confused.

Oh right, I forgot to comment on the TouchPad, the difference is that it doesn't infringe on a product that's on the market. Once the iPad 2 was launched, the 1gens were discontinued. No company would spend millions litigating a design they don't care about. Just my 2 cents

soo why is apple suing the xoom now even though it came out before i think so whats the reason hear as you said ''the difference is that it doesn't infringe on a product that's on the market. Once the iPad 2 was launched, the 1gens were discontinued. No company would spend millions litigating a design they don't care about. ''

Not sure anyone wants to mess with HP... not since they own all the Palm patents (which basically includes the patent for smart phones).

Apple is afraid of hp, palm help the patents to try smart phone and now hp owns palm. Apple would be stupid to pursue them.

I have seen pictures of Samsung phones that look like iPhones, until I look at the icons and notice they aren't iOS like. The thing is, if you are designing a product that people are getting confused with mine I'd want you to change it because you are taking advantage of my brand, not yours. "Go ahead and copy my idea, not the way it looks. Build your own". And all companies feel this way because they invest millions into a product, well at least companies with ideas. All it takes is for a company to come up with their own design language. Again, HTC products are great examples.

Android, even with TocuhWiz does not operate at all like an iPhone. With Android, you can customize your homescreens to look any way you want to. With the iPhone you can't. Of course, that means that someone can take a Samsung phone, arrange a bank of icons in a grid on the homescreens to make it look something similar to an iPhone. So what? They should be punished because the OS allows you to roll your own look even one that may remind you of another product?

"No one is arguing that the OS's operate alike."

Yes. There are many people who have argued just that.

"The thing is Samsung is the one that makes the home screen look similar to the iPhone and markets their product as so."

"A rectangular grid of icons" should not be eligible for a trademark. It doesn't matter what anyone says. Common sense should tell anyone, and especially an "engineer", that there are only certain ways to arrange icons on a screen. What Apple did was not novel nor non-obvious. I had a rectangular grid of icons on my Palm Pilot over a decade ago.

I meant in our conversation. Sorry.
Lot's of things don't feel novel or non-obvious once it has been seen once. I'm not saying that Apple was the first with a grid of rectangular icons, it wasn't. But it was the first that made a 4x4 grid with a favorites bar, which is really what they have copyrighted/trademarked/patented and something that Samsung has copied in their marketing. It's as simple as that: Samsung wants their devices to look like Apple's.

You are defending Apple claiming ownership to a "4x4 grid" of icons. Priceless. This is the problem. Such a thing shouldn't even be eligible for trademark, patent, or anything else.

It sounds stupid, but why would you want everyone from having a 4x4 grid of icons. Where's the innovation in that? Besides, it's not 4x4 grid of icons that's trademarked, that's just one of the claims.

The premise for my argument is that if you block a company from doing something they HAVE to come up with something else or perish. It's forcing them to innovate, not just copy and wait for someone to come up with something. Speeds things up. Customers win.

So, even with the extra buttons, USB port, different shaped back, no Apple logo on the back, and the word "SAMSUNG" plastered on the front of the phone, you still thought it was an iPhone?

No, I was not talking about pictures that display the phone by itself and is large enough to notice all of those features.
I was referring to pictures in which people are showing off the phone in hand. THOSE pictures when seen on blogs make the phone pretty tiny. In which case the home screen icons are the most visible difference to someone who knows the difference between iOS and TouchWiz.

If you give companies vague abstract patents, they will sue each other to try to prevent inovation in the future and attempt to become monopolies. If you don't protect developers and inventors from lawsuits for vague abstract patents, then there will be less incentive for them to develop/invent in the future.

Can you claim that apple didn't copy the ideas for the iphone and ipad? I remember smartphones with touch screens and apps long before the iphone. They just changed the screen type/size added a specific program to buy apps. I also remember touch screen slate tablet pc's long before an ipad came out. Apple copies ideas just as much if not more than other companies copy them. Apple just has more money to pump into legal battles than the other companies. Oh and let's not forget all the NEW and innovative ideas in the new iOS version. Apple innovated all that stuff... Non of what their os can do came from Android or WebOS!

I can claim that with a straight face, go back through the years, apple were doing this same 'copying' thing to a lot of other companies.

I believe it was Steve Jobs who was quoted as saying, "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

And then this stuff happens. What a waste of time for everyone involved.

Exactly, ideas. It's different than a method, or design. Ideally, the way they are implemented should be different to speed up innovation.

The point of the patent system, at least the idealistic view when it was established, was to give companies/inventors a monopoly of their invention for a time period. An idea cannot be patented, only a method of implementing said idea. My point is that companies are allowed to copy ideas, what is illegal is to copy the method. With companies coming up with their own methods for an idea, innovation increases because a new method can lead to another idea, which can lead to another and another.
Copying what another company is doing just because it makes sense doesn't birth innovation, only another choice of brand. I hope this made sense.

Interface "methods" should not be patentable, especially when it's the natural evolution of device interfaces. For instance, Apple tried to sue MS in the 80's over Windows. They lost. The judge ruled that you can't protect innovations that reflect the natural evolution of interfaces. Apple should lose here as well.

What you are saying is that nothing is patentable. If ideas nor methods can be patented, what can be? Either way, this ruling has nothing to do with patents.

Apple lost for two reasons: 1) The judge ruled that some of Apple's claims were covered by the existing license Apple had with Microsoft, the rest of the claims agains Microsoft were dismissed due to the Merger Doctrine (ideas cannot be copyrighted). So Apple lost because they were trying to enforce that their ideas where being infringed upon.

"What you are saying is that nothing is patentable."

Fond of strawmen I see? No, I'm saying what you can patent should be limited.

First off, I don't think software should be patentable at all, with the exception of algorithms. If you want to protect something novel, then close your source. I'm on a software patent at my work and I think it's ridiculous. What we did should not be patentable.

Secondly, you should not be able to take an existing motif or concept and simply put it on a different device and claim you own it anew.

The tab is nothing like the ipad. Different form factor, different OS... I can't find any similarities actually. Apple is gay.

Seriously, b.s. like this makes me want to support Samsung by making my next upgrade a Samsung. It helps, of course, that the Samsung GS2 is a hot product.

I will not buy any Apple products. This is bogus. And no, everyone didn't copy Apple. Apple is losing the battle against Android and rather innovate products to compete fairly, the resort to lawsuits. Let's see how they like Kal-El and ICS. They may have the lead but just as in Phones, they are going down. Just a matter of time.

With the new rumours of the iPhone 5 in early October and Google maybe bringing the next nexus with ICS within a week or more of the iPhone 5, Apple are screwed, lets see how many more people Apple try and sue when ICS is released, I am betting even more

It all boils down to trying to use the legal system to stifle competition. What Apple has been and is doing is abusing the patent system to try to remove from the market anything that can hurt their sales, period. This isn't Apple's intellectual property anymore than a general car design is Ford's.

If they start winning these cases, it will be time to attack Apple for anti-trust violations as it is clear they want to be a monopoly.

I'm all for a patent reform. A lot of companies are abusing the patent system. However, this isn't one of those cases. There are no patents involved in this ruling, only copyrights and trademarks.

Then their trademarks should be invalidated.

I remember in the 90's when Chrysler started the retro styling craze by coming out with their new Ram trucks with flared fenders. It was a huge success. Sure enough, a few years later, the other companies did the same. Should Chrysler have sued?

Apple, and their defenders are ridiculous.

Well it's up to the FTC to decide that, and they can so at any time. Since Apple's are still valid, I assume they are legal. In no way I'm I implying that the FTC is right for not doing so, just that it hasn't invalidated them.

I just want to point out that it is legal to protect IP that is being infringed on and just happen to agree with Apple in this case. Note that this isn't a patent case, in which case I may have a different opinion depending on the patent.

Well, it all depends if Chrysler had some sort of legal backing to sue. If they did, then I'd say they missed out on some revenue. Also, do you know if companies didn't give Chrysler some money to implement that?

Hypothetical, what if Chrysler had done some litigation and won? Now, if companies couldn't use the fenders they would have had to come up with something better to compete, or in other words innovate. But alas, it's ideal.

"In no way I'm I implying that the FTC is right for not doing so, just that it hasn't invalidated them."

BS. You've been arguing the merits this entire time. You can't backtrack your way out of his.

"I just want to point out that it is legal to protect IP that is being infringed on and just happen to agree with Apple in this case."

There are lots of things that are legal but are morally wrong, in the public morality sense rather than the personal morality sense. We aren't arguing that what Apple is doing is illegal. We are arguing both that Apple is evil to do it, and that the government is evil to enforce it.

"Well, it all depends if Chrysler had some sort of legal backing to sue. If they did, then I'd say they missed out on some revenue."

This is corrupt thinking and the one of the reason this country has gone down the tubes. Greed trumps common sense and common decency. Sick.

"Hypothetical, what if Chrysler had done some litigation and won? Now, if companies couldn't use the fenders they would have had to come up with something better to compete, or in other words innovate."

There are a million ways to design a fender that performs the function of a fender. There are very few ways to design a tablet that's holdable by a human being and allows efficient access to the information it contains. Chrysler couldn't trademark the concept of a flared fender and Apple should not be able to trademark the concept of a slate touchscreen tablet. Unless they can prove that the Tab is a direct copy AND causes real confusion, then the case should be thrown out of court.

Just because I believe I'm right doesn't make the FTC right.

It is not morally wrong to protect something that you worked on. I don't agree that software patents shouldn't exist. They should, but only for a really short time, say a half a year. Someone's hard work should be rewarded for a time. Say I work on a product for a number of years and then launch it to only have it copied by competitors months later, that's morally right? That's corrupt thinking.
If you came up with a better product than mine, well frak me I need to come up with something better, not copy it.

And unless Samsung can prove that they don't the case will be in Apple's favor.

"In no way I'm I implying that the FTC is right for not doing so, just that it hasn't invalidated them."

BS. You've been arguing the merits this entire time. You can't backtrack your way out of his.

"I just want to point out that it is legal to protect IP that is being infringed on and just happen to agree with Apple in this case."

There are lots of things that are legal but are morally wrong, in the public morality sense rather than the personal morality sense. We aren't arguing that what Apple is doing is illegal. We are arguing both that Apple is evil to do it, and that the government is evil to enforce it.

"Well, it all depends if Chrysler had some sort of legal backing to sue. If they did, then I'd say they missed out on some revenue."

This is corrupt thinking and the one of the reason this country has gone down the tubes. Greed trumps common sense and common decency. Sick.

"Hypothetical, what if Chrysler had done some litigation and won? Now, if companies couldn't use the fenders they would have had to come up with something better to compete, or in other words innovate."

There are a million ways to design a fender that performs the function of a fender. There are very few ways to design a tablet that's holdable by a human being and allows efficient access to the information it contains. Chrysler couldn't trademark the concept of a flared fender and Apple should not be able to trademark the concept of a slate touchscreen tablet. Unless they can prove that the Tab is a direct copy AND causes real confusion, then the case should be thrown out of court.

"In no way I'm I implying that the FTC is right for not doing so, just that it hasn't invalidated them."

BS. You've been arguing the merits this entire time. You can't backtrack your way out of his.

"I just want to point out that it is legal to protect IP that is being infringed on and just happen to agree with Apple in this case."

There are lots of things that are legal but are morally wrong, in the public morality sense rather than the personal morality sense. We aren't arguing that what Apple is doing is illegal. We are arguing both that Apple is evil to do it, and that the government is evil to enforce it.

"Well, it all depends if Chrysler had some sort of legal backing to sue. If they did, then I'd say they missed out on some revenue."

This is corrupt thinking and the one of the reason this country has gone down the tubes. Greed trumps common sense and common decency. Sick.

"Hypothetical, what if Chrysler had done some litigation and won? Now, if companies couldn't use the fenders they would have had to come up with something better to compete, or in other words innovate."

There are a million ways to design a fender that performs the function of a fender. There are very few ways to design a tablet that's holdable by a human being and allows efficient access to the information it contains. Chrysler couldn't trademark the concept of a flared fender and Apple should not be able to trademark the concept of a slate touchscreen tablet. Unless they can prove that the Tab is a direct copy AND causes real confusion, then the case should be thrown out of court.

It's an F'ing screen that is touchable. As stated this has nothing to do with patents on software but 'community design'. I think the patent situation is dumb and crazy what is patentable, but this is even more so. It's a rectange with rounded corners and really thin. It's not even the same aspect ratio. What is Samsung supposed to do, make a circle tablet? Maybe a Triangle? I would be surprised if a square would fly because it would still after all be a rectangle.

A table is a rectangle with legs, yet there are hundreds of tables that look different. It's not the shape (rectangle) that has been copyrighted or trademarks, it's the actual look of the device. Like I wrote in another comment; HTC has phones that are rectangles, with a touchscreen, thin, yet they don't look like iPhones. They look like HTC phones.

There are also hundreds of tables that look the same. As these devices are getting to be so small and basic they are just a small shell holding the inards and a screen, it will get to be pretty ridiculous if some can't have rounded edges, or a certain color because someone else has already done that.

HTC might looks slightly different, but most people would not mistake a samsung device for an idevice. If it doesn't have the fruit it's not apple.
With Apple it is all about the Brand and their OS, I would be shocked if I ever read about a story where someone wanted to buy an idevice but accidentally bought a Samsung device. I suppose it could happen, but the rule should be a normal sane person would have to make that mistake.

Not to say that this allows Samsung to copy, but again I don't see how you can make the shell for a rectangle screen that different, and it is so basic I don't think you should have to. It would be like TV producers suing each over for using Black plastic edges.

You're right about it getting pretty ridiculous. But so far I haven't seen hundreds of tablets that look the same. The 7in Galaxy Tab and the fat versions of the 8 and 10, HTC Flyer, the Iconia, Toshiba Thrive, the Xoom, iPad 2 all rectangular shells holding innards and a screen, but all have their distinctive design language.

TV's have been around for decades, all patents and whatnots have expired ages ago. Even then, each TV model has something that makes it part of a brand. Actually, I should say most cuz I don't look at TV design.

I bought my HDTV in 2007. It's a Mitsubishi LCD and has a very narrow bezel around the edge of the screen. At the time, the other brands all had fat bezels. Now, there are a ton of TVs with very minimal bezels. Should Mitsubishi have sued? Should a company be allowed to own something as generic as "thin bezels" simply because they marketed one first? Ridiculous.

Bottom line: The Tab 10.1 does not look like the iPad 2. It simply doesn't. They don't even have the same aspect ratio. Your weak argument falls apart at the premise before you can even try to argue details.

Dood, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know whether they should have sued or not. Maybe they just didn't have legal backing, or maybe they didn't give a frak. And I agree that companies abuse patents sometimes, but in my opinion Apple is in the right in THIS case.

The damned aspect ratio has nothing to do with this. I don't understand why people keep bringing it up. If the Tab doesn't look like the iPad 2 then there's nothing to worry about. I just stated that I see why Apple sued Samsung for these claims; Products are too similar and Samsung markets their products as being similar.

@photon: Would you please share with the group what specifically about "the actual look of the device" leads Apple to think their design has been copied?

When I look at both devices I see two different designs. Please comment specifically on what about the Tab 10.1 is an infringement on Apple's iPad design?

Dood, I don't know. I don't study law. I'm an engineer. But I can see how Apple would feel that Samsung is copying their designs. I mean Apple hasn't sued anyone else on trade dress, so it must not feel other's product with rectangular shells and touchable screens infringe on their product.

When I look at these products I see one is trying to be like the other; A rectangular object with rounded edges, flat logo-less screen with a black border surrounded by silver accents (which have been a staple design feature in iOS devices).

Sounds like all tablets? I don't think so. The HTC Flyer has a unique (for lack of a better word) border surrounding the screen, along with HTC logo and buttons visible on the borders. The Xoom has logos, but it doesn't have the silver accent surrounding the borders. This all sound stupid, I completely agree. But unfortunately for other companies, Apple came up with the most minimalistic design and legally trademarked/copyrighted or w/e the hell out of it.

Moreover, Samsung has copied Apple's proprietary port and placed it on the Tab. Are you serious?! A proprietary port copy? How more obvious can you be? I'm all for choices, it makes competition and innovation bloom. But that is not innovation, a company like that should be forced to take their product off the market.

"When I look at these products I see one is trying to be like the other; A rectangular object with rounded edges, flat logo-less screen with a black border surrounded by silver accents (which have been a staple design feature in iOS devices)."

Yeah. That's not generic at all. Perhaps they should have made triangular edges or something. That would be comfortable to hold.

"This all sound stupid, I completely agree. But unfortunately for other companies, Apple came up with the most minimalistic design and legally trademarked/copyrighted or w/e the hell out of it"

You don't think it's unfortunate. You think it's deserved. Stop backtracking and trying to hide behind legality.

It IS unfortunate for other companies, they were unlucky. I'm not backtracking. If you think that I have then you misunderstood what I wrote or I failed at expressing my thoughts.

they are suing motorola now so even now that looks like an ipad even though you sort of agreed that xoom is bot getting sued because it has logos etc...it looks pretty obvious that they are suing anyone that maybe a threat in the future and it probably wont be long before htc get sued..think apple are waiting on htc to release a 10inch tablet and we all know whats going to happen then sadly...apple really are making a joke of the patent and trademark system...

I hate Samsung but I may buy one just because of this. I hope Steve Jobs and his company burn in hell. They are the single biggest cancer on the tech industry since Microsoft in the 90's and early 00's.

With all this the look is the same thing. Only iSheep think everything else is an Apple product because they are that single minded, when I got my Nexus One at first I must of had over 50 people asking me "is that a new iphone" and i tell them straight have you ever seen an iphone that has HTC and Google written on the back? their next comment was, is it a new ipod touch then ?, it is really aggrivating

I whole-heartedly agree here. I have the 7" Galaxy Tab, which looks nothing like an iPad by any stretch of the imagination. Yet every single person who sees it asks me if it's an iPad.

Imagine if this patent crap was going on since the beginning. We would all still be using green screen computers and cellphones would have to be powered by a car battery.

That basically commits me to Android and against Apple forever. Here I come Photon and when Panasonic produces a fully ruggedized Android Tablet, let's see Apple sue them for it. Drop your iPad and see how it works afterward. HA!!!

My hate for Apple has been sealed. Much like I hate Mastercard and Visa for trying to squeeze American Express out of Europe. I will not buy or recommend Apple as these practices are bullying tactics and stifle innovation and in turn reduce consumer choice. I don't want an iPad, iPhone or iMac and to use the market that is supporting those products against those that choose an alternate path should be criminal. This claim is not even based on a patent rather they are claiming they simply copied that iPad. In the end they won't win but in a way they already have by getting this injunction.

Even though my next phone is a samsung my tablet is going to be an ipad. This still sucks people won't get the Honeycomb goodness.

I can see the arhument that the S series rips off the Iphone but the Galaxy tab looks nothing like the ipad. They run a different OS and even the shape is different.

Google needs to go after Apple for imitating Android when the iPhone 5 comes out with all the new features that mimic what Android has had for a while now.

You can't sue somebody for using something that is open source. Open Source can sue that somebody for trying to profit on something that is supposed to be free.

Your right, welcome to Open Source.

The judge must have been a mac user and/or an imbecile. Of all android devices made my samsung, the tablet is the least similar to an apple product. This is just a temporary victory for Apple, but in the long run it cannot stop Android's growth.

Time to fight fire with fire. Apple wants to use every legal means to destroy the competition? Fine, time for us to do the same: use everything within our rights to destroy Apple. It's time to downrank every apple product from every review site such as newegg amazon buy.com etc. I have owned apple products myself, but guess what, throwing it in the trash, they don't work anyway. Time to voice my opinion.

Apple wants to fight dirty? Fine, they got one!

Sorry to say but downranking Apple products would be about as successful as telling Jonestown residents that the Kool-Aid is bad. Cultists will not be deterred.

True but it will deter future customers a bit and will at least let it be known to apple that this BS is not cool. Idk if you remember the fiasco with Amazon and a certain book it the ratings made Amazon take the book off from the market

They aren't even set up the same. The Galaxy Tab is set up to default as landscape and the iPad is set up to default tabloid (look at the labeling). Not only that, the Galaxy Tab has a bigger screen. I have always hated Apple and always will. I think for myself and want options, I don't accept only what one company with one option has to offer.

For anyone that believes Apple is correct in its assertion that the Tab 10.1 copies their design, would you please objectively explain, what specific design elements of the Tab 10.1 have been copied from the iPad?

You are free to comment on the power buttons, volume rockers, speaker placement, camera placement, size of the bezel, colors,
weight, height, width, thickness, corners, materials used(etc.)

Please be specific!

I bet you they will tell you, "because it's thin just like the ipad2!". As if Apple is the only one allowed to make a thin tablet and everyone else must make a brick.

If there was no viability to Apple's claims then the court would not have granted their injunction. You guys need to stop pretending like you understand IP law.

@Mepaphoros: While I agree that we are not privy to all the details in the case, we have seen, more often then I care to admit, judges that make rulings from the bench based on their own bias, rather than the merits of the case.

I hate to admit it, but in this country as well, courts and judges often legislate from the bench and make rulings that lack all kinds of viability.

I don't doubt that they err on the side of caution when granting injunctions, but I'd have to assume that these particular judges were fairly confident in their reasoning on the issue. This doesn't mean Apple wins...it just means that the courts feel Apple has stated its case well enough to put Samsung "on hold."

The magnitude and implications of this court decision are unlike any that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

This is not merely putting Samsung "on hold", but has told Samsung they "must immediately remove all Galaxy Tabs from store shelves and halt all advertising."

The financial impact such a decision will have on Samsung cannot be underestimated. This is HUGE!

For a court to force Samsung to remove its product from store shelves, after it has already launched, in my opinion, is gravely irresponsible.

What would be the point of a ruling against Samsung if it was allowed to keep on selling and advertising its Tab?

Samsung went ahead with the release of the Galaxy Tab in Britain last week even though it must have known that a ruling from the court was imminent.

It happens all the time in the pharmaceutical industry. Here is the standard in case some of you are unfamiliar:

As described in Reebok Int'l Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc., a party is entitled to a preliminary injunction if it can make the following showing: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the injunction's favorable impact on the public interest.
A court cannot look to these factors alone, however. The Federal Circuit in Hybritech v. Abbott Labs stated as follows:
These factors, taken individually, are not dispositive; rather, the district court must weigh and measure each factor against the other factors and against the form and magnitude of the relief requested.
To succeed on a motion for preliminary injunction, the movant must establish both of the first two factors -- likelihood of success and irreparable harm.

See, this is what I don't get. How is Apple "irreparably harmed" by the Galaxy Tab 10.1? Will Apple go under because people suddenly start buying the GT over the iPad? It's not like Samsung is selling them for $100 on street corners or back alley flea markets. Apple's profits might dip a little, but they're rolling in cash and I hardly see the slight loss in sales as "irreparable harm." But maybe that's because I'm rational and not a lawyer.

And how does this impact the public interest? It's in the public interest to reduce the variety of goods on store shelves? It's in the public interest to eliminate one competitor from a market that's overly dominated by the plaintiff?

The only thing I can say for certain is Samsung has got to be pissed right now. Apple was wise to move away from Sammy components, because I foresee things getting *very* ugly before they remotely get better in this fight... and the only losers will ultimately be consumers.

Looks like the EU market will need to resort to eBay or Amazon to grab their galaxy tabs. Apple is just mad because nobody want an oversized ipod touch

Finally, someone has found the fortitude and sense of justice to halt Samsung's steady and neverending infringement of Apple patents and intellectual property.

This bold breach of U.S. and international law must be stopped. Unfortunately, this isn't the only company intent on using Apple's innovation and ingenuity illegally to improve their position within the marketplace ...

... Motorola and HTC ... you're next!

Viva La Apple compañía!!!

Any Judge who would stop a company from selling it's product over the shape of it's product must, I say must, be in bed with Apple. All pads are basicly the same shape so does that mean all pads are illegal, bullshit. This Judge needs to be investigated even if this is overturned, which it will. This Judge should be removed and investigated. Very sad day for Apple that it is that desperate when they see a better product. I will go out and buy a Samsung 10.1 pad today just to spite Apple, they made up my mind. Android must go after Apple full force and pull their plug. Jobs is a very desperate little boy, what goes around comes around.

this will force me to sell asap my stupid ipad and try to get the new galaxy 10.1 before it desapear. Mr apple do u feel better now? Me no, thanks.

this will force me to sell asap my stupid ipad and try to get the new galaxy 10.1 before it desapear. Mr apple do u feel better now? Me no, thanks.

Guys. PLEASE HELP ME.

I can understand (but in no way do I agree with) the iPhonr 4 and GS2 suit...BUT WHAT THE HELL. This is just plain STUPID. The iPad and Galaxy tab aren't even that similar! WAIT. They're rectangular and black. It's pathetic how Apple have such leverage over courts to make such stupendous claims. Firstly the tablets are in a completely different screen size, shape/screen ratio. The Galaxy Tab is generally a "landscape" tablet whereas the iPad is usually always marketed as portrait...because it's a mere copy of the iPhone.

I mean...it's just an example of pure bureaucracy here. The courts know the GS2 won't be banned (because it's too popular) so they ban the 10.1 because it's just not as popular...as many other android tablets. WHY IS THIS DO PEOPLE ASK? There are all these reports of iPad reigning dominant for 10 years. NO WONDER. With all of this "bad press" on the Galaxy Tab...a tab that is referred to as an Android tablet...the common consumer would most likely go for the "real thing" rather than a "copy" And I don't blame them. How are they supposed to believe differently from what a newspaper article says...Apple's manipulation has simply gone too far. Bloody ridiculous.

P.S - First post :) and RANT OVER.

AND ONE MORE THING....all you Apple fans trying to prove the 10.1 was a copy of the iPad...G-T-F-O AndroidCentral and go and play with your overpriced Apple products. If you weren't feeling so insecure about "how great" your Apple products are (or how great Mr Jobs has told you there are), you wouldn't even be on AndroidCentral.

Many postings are focusing on this ruling being a blow to competition and how apple is not competing on innovation and resorts to lawsuits, etc.

What many fail to consider however, is that this is really about business models. See, apple's modelhas always been, first to market and leading through creative innovation. The down side of this model is that you have to spend a ton on r&d, as well as on marketing and advertising.

Microsoft's model has been about commoditization. They have innovated some, but mostly they take and distrubute to the masses. Apple can easily defend against this model since they continue to focus on innovation.

However, enter Google. Their model is not to commoditize, but to, first improve upon, and then to innovate. This model saves them millions in r&d and advertising costs, and they can create excellent products. Apple is struggling to defend against this. But by using a first to market model, apple MUST enforce patents, trademarks, copyright...anything they can. Otherwise all that r&d and ad money is gone.

The real question is whether apple's business model will survive and if it does, will it end up morphing? My guess is that within the next 10 years they will get into the music and video business exclusively.

This really is getting out of hand. This patent thing is starting to affect customers in a very negative way. Something really needs to be done. I can't believe it's gotten to this point and so fast too. Apples battle isn't even with samsung, it's with google IMO. I don't even use android and this pisses me off. All this does is make me lose faith in these company's that are involved as well as screwing over customers. Apple/samsung bet your crap together!! Your job is to make products that benefit your customers. Not have a pissing contest with each other at the cost of customers.

Oh, Grow up Apple! You are afraid Android and Samsung will kill your iPad line so you start litigating. You are also afraid Samsung will cease supplying you with displays so you start bullying. You are also afraid Android will liberate people from your iReligion so you start the Applecade.

You are just afraid and being childish while at it!

To be honest, Samsung needs to stop copycat iphone/ ipad design. ASUS and HTC could deliver their own trademark design, and so does Samsung, if They confident to their product, and why didn't? Android has better performance, better hardware, and most of all, satisfyin' people needs of Exploring.

Lets hope Apple doesn't come out with the iWipe, the newest and most innovative way to wipe your ass. All other toilet paper will be taken off the shelves for being loosely similar and I'll be forced into walking around with a sh*tty ass because I can't afford to replace my week old yet still overpriced iWipe u2 with the just released iWipe 4u.

So with all that background, here’s Apple’s list of trade dress elements it thinks Samsung is infringing upon:

Hardware and software trade dress claims:

-- A rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded.
-- The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders.
-- As to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width.
-- As to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width.
-- A metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface.
-- A display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners.
-- A bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Apple even lays claim's to box design:

Packaging trade dress claims

-- A rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box.
-- A two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece.
-- The use of a tray, that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

I have heard it all now. : - /

Why is it, when nobody agrees with a certain point of view, some resort to colorful metaphors and threats?

I can see Phil will be a little busy today.

1. It's why we have a legal system. Does it have weaknesses? Yes, but it's the best we have.

2. I doubt anybody is going to rush out and throw their Apple products on the freeway in an attempt at rebellion. Nobody will see it, and frankly, nobody really cares.

3. Seems like an opportunity to make some healthy bucks transporting Galaxy Tabs into the EU!

Well, if Apple's beef is that Galaxy tablet looks a lot like the iPad, I have an idea. Samsung should imprint on the tablet: "Not an iPad - way better!" That ought to do away with any confusion.

Well, if Apple's beef is that Galaxy tablet looks a lot like the iPad, I have an idea. Samsung should imprint on the tablet: "Not an iPad - way better!" That ought to do away with any confusion.