Galaxy Tab remains illegal in Germany Sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 remain illegal in Germany, a Dusseldorf court decided this morning. Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffmann believes that Samsung’s "smooth, simple surfaces" on the 10.1-inch Honeycomb tablet copied the minimalist design of Apple's iPad. The court said that Apple's design isn't the only way to …
I can only assume Apple are hoping to hold off a significant release of Samsung tablets until after Christmas to make one last land grab.
Interestingly the HMV in Canary Wharf has now got a couple of long tables for selling tablets with 2 spaces reserved for the Samsung ones when they finally make it out (Coming Soon apparently).
Mind you - I only counted 3 racks in the whole shop selling CDs but I guess that's progress!
Popped into Currys Digital on Oxford Street (Tottenham Crt. Rd end). looks like they already have them (16 GB Wifi/3G) in stock as there was one on the shop floor to play with and I must admit it knocks the spots of the other Android tabs before it.
In all honesty I think Apple's tactics are disgusting and hope Samsung will keep on fighting because this hurts consumer choice.
I hope are all the bureaucrats in Brussels are watching closely. Considering the bitch slap the EU dished out to Microsoft and Intel over the years Apple needs to learn that it doesn't own and control everything.
Star Trek being one of those prior art examples of course. :)
I recall many episodes with the crew using their "smooth and simple" tablets to display info, and communicate. I watched an episode only the other week... it looks like an iPad to me! :)
Is prior art restricted to the "real world", or can fictional precursors be cited as prior art sufficient to cause a patent app to fail? Lawyers... feel free to comment, I don't know the answer.
Expect Apple to be sued by Paramount Studios imminently! :)
1. Samsung can and should charge this to apple and the current law allows them. When someone interferes with your legitimate business you can and should sue them for damages.
2. Samsung should file a case with the EU comission. Apple possesses enough of the mobile market to be classed as a "company with significant market power" under EU laws which means that it becomes a subject to the competition comission. All it takes is to either show that tablets are a market of their own or to add tablets to mobile phones market (something apple has been doing itself). From there on, EU is in need for some money to bail out failing fraudulent governments and getting it of someone with a bigger cash pile than the US government sounds like a jolly good idea.
"Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffmann believes that Samsung’s "smooth, simple surfaces" on the 10.1-inch Honeycomb tablet copied the minimalist design of Apple's iPad."
Coming soon... Apple sues BWM for their windscreens, LG for their flat panel TV's and Canadian Ice Hockey arena's for their "Smooth, simple surfaces".
The way I see it, this is a case of trying to kill teh competition and leave Apple as the only player left standing.
I mean, the difference in functionality of the two devices is so strong; screw looks; they are different beasts and all Apple is doing is trying to restrict my choice (not that I'm actually IN the market for a fondle slab anyway, and even if I was, I wouldn't buy Apple out of principle) and all that this is doing, is reinforcing my opinion that I'll never buy Apple ... unless I can jailbreak it to heck and back.
Of course, if you beleive that everything is going in to the cloud, then yes it might be argued that everything comes down to looks, because all a slab will be, is a browser and wireless hardware. But then... they aren't.
Have Apple seen the SII? From the comparisons I've seen of it next to an iPhone 4, there's no way anyone could say it's a copy.
Is the problem that the yet-to-be-announced-but-in-production iPhone 5 doesn't stack up favourably against it and they need to get it banned? Maybe not, but, makes you wonder why they'd go after a product that clearly isn't a copy of the iPhone.
You would think Samsung tried to sell it as the "iPadd, complete with Appp store" from all the bitching going on. Hell it's not the same size, isn't the same color, doesn't run IOS, doesn't have that stupid button at the bottom, and doesn't use their stupid Apple port on the bottom.
It really is because it is a smooth rounded rectangle.
I'll bet Samsung originally designed it with sharp corners and spikes all over the surface, but found that it didn't function well after being covered in blood, so they decided they were going to have to figure out why Apple's iPad users didn't complain about the blood, and discovered that smooth, non-sharp surfaces were the key. Then they ripped off that design. (the same design as every dinner tray ever made)
Samsung, forget the Galaxy Tab, release that damn TX100 already. Do you not want my money? Added bonus, the TX100 looks nothing like a iDouch.
I'm so sick of this rubbish.
"I'm sorry you look like Danny Devito, I'm going to sue you and therefore you cannot walk the streets of America."
This stinks of Apple running scared because of another company. All the fan boys that support this product are so brain washed they think this OK. Fast forward 10 years when people have had enough of Apples rubbish and another company will be doing the same, they will be crying a different tune.
No wonder this civilization hasn't progressed, we've clearly found a utopian existence and shun those who dare to make even the slightest improvement (even if it resembles the original). Henry Ford would be worth a mint now, all those 4 wheeled contraptions with a 5th wheel for steering driving around.
"They resemble what I created, they're only faster, more sutied to the current change in technology and cheaper. This can't be right"
I'm a big Apple user, I like its products and they work for me.
But this is crazy. Apple should (and will) protect it's IP but protecting the looks of something just because there's similar (not identical/fake) out there. Nuts. Besides anything else simple ergonomics would tend to move tablet design down the iPad-a-like route.
Wonder if Bang & Olufsen might consider suing Apple for use of snazzy glass and aluminium designs?
Got the S2 when it came out as her indoors has the S1 and I prefered that to the Jobsian offering.
Same goes with the Samsung tab, its clearly better than the Apple product for them to be putting so much energy into litigation so will be getting one of those as well.
Probably not the result Apple wanted
can somebody please translate the above into plain English.
The way I read it, the judge is banning the Galaxy Tab because the front of the tablet is made off a single piece of glass and s/he somehow believes that Apple came up with this idea and no one else should use it! am I understanding this correctly? Or is there something more to it?
during the riots in London, there were more police protecting Apple store at Regent Street than protecting the small business in Clapham Junction... That tells you where the focus are!
the funny thing is... grab an iCrap and a Galaxy tab.. where the hell you see anything similar?
Germans, wake up!
But there's no getting away from the fact that the Galaxy Tab looks almost exactly the same as an iPad. That's all the judge is saying.
There are plenty of other ways of styling a tablet -- HTC, Asus and Acer seem to have managed it (Lenovo and a few others less so), why can't Samsung?
If you Droidtards can't see the uncanny resemblance, then you're the idiotic ones, not the judge.
it's black, rectangular and has rounded corners. it's also a different aspect ratio, designed to be held in a different orientation and does not have a big button on the front of it.
of course that same description can be equally applied to tablets from asus, htc, acer, hp, blackberry.....which I think covers Android, Web OS, Blackberry and Windows.
Which could explain why Apple "accidentally" distorted the Galaxy images to make it appear the same size, showed it in portrait and not it's native landscape view and with the app drawer open and not with it's desktop showing.
The point is not that the Samsung tab looks like an ipad, yes it does, quite a lot. The point is that the design is obvious and Apple shouldn't have the right to stop other companies making similar designs.
If I was going to design a tablet I'd come up with something very similar. If I'd designed it 7 or 8 years ago it probably would have looked the same but with a brushed chrome finish rather than the shiny black because that would have looked modern. The design of the device is obvious, it's a screen with a bezel.
Perhaps I should not feed the trolls..... however......
I don't really care too much for Samsung.... I detest Apple.
None of that matters, apple are being blatantly anti-competitive and flexing their legal dept to maximise sales of their kit. Wait till another contender comes along, it will be the same story..... Some BS case to stop sales on some crap charges of copying or patents.
I do not buy apple out of principle and am happy with that decision.
Perhaps what apple is failing to realise is that these sorts of cases harm a companies image and tarnish the brand, ultimately leading to turned off consumers and less sales.
If I was Samsung I would have a major marketing campaign throughout Europe - highlighting the more ridiculous aspects of this case, embarrassing apple and again doing a lot of damage to the apple brand.
Apple altering the images of the tab to look as if it is the same physical size as the ipad set the tone of this whole case - comical and unjust.
I may end up buying Samsung kit (of all descriptions) to satisfy my 'Fuck You Apple" cravings that Apple themselves have made all the stronger in me.
I couldn't have said it better (Anonymous Coward), consumers love the freedom of choice and Apple should let their products do the walking and let consumers speak with their hard earned cash.
Just a thought, when the iPad was launched it had a 2-3 year lead ahead of its nearest competition and to stay ahead the iPad has to be improved. Considering the rate at which Apple evolves its products and the rapid rise of Android that lead is now more like 3-6 months (over an 18 month time frame).
...Could 2012 be the year of the Android tablet?
To take on such a legal challenge, Apple are obviously very worried that their fans will mistakenly buy the Galaxy Tab instead of an iPad.
There seems to be only two sensible conclusions:
1. Apple considers its customers to be so stupid that they are unable to distinguish between a black device with Samsung written on it and a genuine white Apple device carrying the Apple logo.
2. Apple are planning to drop the Apple logo and produce black devices.
I realise all the Apple Haters also hate Sony, but I suggest you look at the latest Sony designs. There is absolutely no way you could mistake them for an iPad. Sony have done some innovative and interesting design work.
A tablet does not have to look like an iPad.
Copying an iPad, or any innovative product out to be (and is apparently) unlawful.
Screw Samsung, they are better, they just dropped the ball in their haste to be in the market.
Dweeb
"Copying an iPad, or any innovative product out to be (and is apparently) unlawful."
Guess that should be "ought".
But anyway: Wrong.
It cannot be unlawful and should not be unlawful.
It's immoral and mercantilistic - no state-enforced entrenched monopolies and rent-seeking please. No beggar thy neighbor games in the marketplace.
It's subjective - because what may be "innovative" in the eyes of the starry-eyed fanboi might well be "obviously obvious" in the eyes of anything else.
It's a lie - no "innovation" comes out of the brain of a super-genius fully formed and ready to take over the market. It's always based on existing stuff. If you absolutely want your protection, you should be forced to build your product ex nihilo. Ten years on an isolated island with no access to modern telecom devices should be sufficient, no?
Of course it looks the same. What other way is there?
The Pen & Pad I designed in 1988 looked the same too.
The issue inst the similarity, the issue is does Apply have exclusivity to a simple rectangular shape with a rectangular screen.
Yes it could look like a Cardassian terminal. But that would be as stupid as cars with Octagonal wheels.
There are two ways they could go.
1. Create a better product and sell it
2. Use to courts to kill the competition
They have chosen option 2. That means they think the ipad can't compete in a fair marketplace.. rather odd opinion for a company to have about one of its flagship products.
I wonder if their lack of confidence is part of the reason steve jobs bailed?
According to the market (ie. products actually sold) Apple have a better product! It's certainly the product everyone is willing to and wants to buy.
I have no issue with Apple defending their design and other rights. Samasung copied Apple's product, blatantly. They deserve their fate.
I rather like the new wedgy Sony slab, nothing like an iPad at all and technically quite top drawer.
I may get one, coz it's cool
Dweeb
For all those defending Apple in this rediculous case stating that Samsung simply copied their design, perhaps you should do a picture search for Samsung picture frames.
One in particular may interest you, http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
This came out in 2006, i.e. pre-ipad. Perhaps you want to re-think your support for your Apple design gods...
in the event your father is, as we piously hope, alive and well and enjoying his collection or if, in the natural course of time and human mortality, it is now in your ownership, the owner of the collection might do well to consult a lawyer with regard to protection from a possible suit from Apple's legal eagles, given that their «Community Design Registration» seems now to be interpreted as giving that company a legal monopoly on rectangular objects with «smooth, simple surfaces» (I'd like to see that in German). Prior art - e g everything occuring between Euklides' attempt to systematise geometry some 2300 years ago and the date of Apple's registration of the design in the EU - would seem, according to Ms Brueckner-Hoffman's ruling, to have become completely irrelevant. Just so do judges render themselves - and the legal systems they represent - laughingstocks. One can only hope that this affair is published so widely that Apple suffers in the only court about which they really care - sales....
Henri
This post has been deleted by its author
All of the Android device makers should gang up on Apple; as well as anyone else that wants to develop mobile computers. As much money, correction as big a market cap as Apple has, it can't afford to fight legal battles with every device maker. If Microsoft, Google, Amazon, RIM, Samsung and Sony led the pack, Apple would think twice. At some point Apple has to stop and think about where it spends its money, on R&D or on lawyers.
In the end though, a better approach would be for all non iOS device makers to get together nd develops quality services that only support non iOS platforms, thus pushing iOS further into the minority. Consumers buy devices because of the content and services. Sony owns a lot of content, Sony could lock Apple out of it's music nd movie library and give license only to Android platforms. And then there is Amazon with it's new Android powered Kindle. Amazon also has a lot of content and services; optimize Amazon for Android platforms and gradually lock iOS out.
There is no law that says any content or service provider has to support a particular platform.
The design maybe "similar" in that there's only so many ways you can portray a touch screen device. But did he actually have both units in court and looked at both the design of the tablets and use both the UI's on them?
Because if he did then I can certainly say....."He should of gone to Specsavers"
""smooth, simple surfaces" on the 10.1-inch Honeycomb tablet copied the minimalist design of Apple's iPad. The court said that Apple's design isn't the only way to make a tablet computer, and that other designs could have been used by Samsung."
Seriously?
Just how the hell these kind of idiots get to decide about things they have obviously no effin' clue about? With every new lunatic decisions like this we get a little bit closer and closer to a complete judiciary meltdown - and then all these crazy ladies like this one will be booted off the bench or at least put back to deliver decisions about handbags stolen from old ladies, employee contract breaches etc.
Very few judges today have enough understanding to even preside over a discussion about UI design or technology, forget making a call at the end.
Such an idiotic, utterly clueless decision like this (only worse is the reasoning that follows it!) only shows one thing; these judges are woefully ill-equipped to handle a case like this so now wonder they end up being fools when they deliver downright stupid, ignorant verdicts like this woman did.
How would you know? Several of the devices that Apple are firing their lawyers at have only just been released/announced. Apple's strategy is clearly to prevent Samsung, in advance, from marketing *anything* within tablets or smartphones if they in any way can. Thus enabling you to continue to rejoice in your own ignorance.
From these comments one can only conclude that the Samsung Galaxy is a far superior tablet to Apple's iPad, but riddle me this...
Wasn't it this week that we were reading that Samsung had pushed 1,000,000 Galaxy tabs in channel, however only 20,000 have sold at retail.
If El Reg commentators love these tablets so much, perhaps they should buy them? Or are they waiting for an HP like fire sale and hoping to pick one up for $100?
Now I do not pretend to have the inside track on Samsung's sales figures but I would simply point out that that *allegation* regarding the sales of the Galaxy Tab came from the CEO (Lenovo I think?) of a major Chinese rival of South Korea's leading tech company. I would hesitate before I quoted such a source in this context.
Everyone seems to be hung-up on the fact that there is only so much you can do with the design/shape/size/form of a tablet before they all start to look the same, and I'm not going to argue with that. But that's just a small part of Apple's "copy cat" dispute with Samsung. Take a look at this to get a better (although probably still incomplete) picture of what has got Apple riled.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2011/09/09/galaxy_tab_remains_illegal_in_germany/
When you take all this into consideration, the icons, the layout of the icons, the colours used, the packaging (and yes, the shape), can you really, truly, honestly, say that Samsung are not guilty of copying Apple, that Samsung haven't taken more than a few liberties?
The items described in the link above are what make an iPhone and iPhone, what make an iPad an iPad. That's what's pisssed Apple off, and it's no wonder the judge has ruled in favour of Apple so far.
"When you take all this into consideration, the icons, the layout of the icons, the colours used, the packaging (and yes, the shape), can you really, truly, honestly, say that Samsung are not guilty of copying Apple, that Samsung haven't taken more than a few liberties?"
If it looked like that on bootup as an iPad does, yes. However, it does not. Apps are generally launched from homescreens (a selection thereof). What Apple have shown the Judge is the App Drawer, something you almost never look at once you've put what you want where you want it.
TouchWiz - the actual "main interface" - looks NOTHING like iOS. It's nowhere near cluttered and ugly enough for that.
Stop drinking Apple's Kool-Aid for five minutes, go to the shops, take a look a Galaxy Tab that's running and then tell bear it bears any relationship to the iPad at all beyond "rectangle".
I'll wait.
"What Apple have shown the Judge is the App Drawer, something you almost never look at once you've put what you want where you want it."
The problem with this is that you have to buy the thing first before you can "put what you want where you want". People buying them in a store are more likely to see what is presented in the photos, ie App Drawer, than TouchWiz. Why even the need for App Drawer other than to make people think they're getting something they're not?
Fanboi? Hardly. I don't own a tablet of any description and don't have a need to get one any time soon, but then doesn't that make me better qualified, ie less biased, to comment on whether item B looks like item A as I have no loyalty to either?
The only reason I joined and commented was because I'm fed up of people trying to justify Samsung's "rip-off" by saying "there's only so much you can do with tablet design" as if that was all there was to Apple's claims of copying. I agree wholeheartedly that the shape is generic and is likely to be the norm for all tablets going forward (aspect-ratio aside), and I doubt any of this would've come about if:
1. Samsung had not copied the layout, icons and the colours of the icons that appear on App Drawer.
2. They'd come up with their own packaging design.
But as can be seen by everyone except the most ardent Apple-haters, that's not what Samsung have done. Personally, I'd have liked to see Samsung show a bit more originality.
In Apple v. Microsoft (1988-94), the U.S. courts were unwilling to consider overall 'look and feel' infringement, insisting instead to examine individual GUI elements. Because of a Windows 1.0 era license agreement with Apple covering many of those elements, the court(s) denied Apple's case.
Right or wrong, it sounds like Apple is finally winning 'look and feel' arguments. Had Apple won that argument back in '88, Microsoft might not have survived (billg's words). Imagine.
Judge: "The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible,".. shame on you Samsung for lacking in imagination they have not even considered the following non rectangular shapes like a round tablet or a triangular one?
...it is not - it's a rather lame and laughable propaganda junk from a site that's even named after its main idol.
There were plenty of modern phones before iPhone and you might want to learn about the fact that, as always, Steve "Freedom from Porn" Jobs was using a ~40 years old Xerox tablet design: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
To paraphrase your cheesy style: if you still don't think that's a childish Apple marketing of junk after readin this story then there's no hope for you, you're just another clueless Mactard.
You can be as anti as you want, but making bogus claims does not help your case.
From your article:-
"There is a clear difference between the Dynabook concept and what the iPad is today. If you look at the iPad and the Dynabook, the usage models could not be any different."
The Dynabook is more like a laptop than anything else.
Samsung blatantly copied, and sailed as close to the wind as they dared. Sadly, the good ship Samsung may end up capsizing (continued metaphor) on this one, because it is difficult for the dispassionate observer (or a judge) to escape the conclusion that Samsung copied Apple's designs, packaging, trade dress and whatever. Two excellent links in the posts here btw!
Those who cannot see that Samsung did indeed copy Apple, are blinded by their own bigotry and, dare I say, envy. Judges regularly pass verdict on cases far more complex than this. Further, one does not need to be a geek to recognise what Samsung has done (in fact the weight of the case rests on the very fact that non-geek consumers will equate the products), and I predict Apple wll win most of this type of case.
Apple are successful in selling products to consumers, not technogeeks. Like my refrigerator, I just plug it in and it works, Apple's products are designed for the masses who could not care less what is under the plastc/metal/glass skin. They care whether it works and how easy it is to operate. By any measure, Apple seems to have been so wildly successful at meeting this need, Samsung decided that copying was the way to go for mobile devices. I expect them to lose in most jurisdictions.
I rather liked the pic linked in a post here which showed the pre and post iPhone Samsung products. One really has to be retarded to continue to make the claims repeated ad infinitum in this forum. Example: The "all tablets look like an iPad because form follows function". This is provably untrue, and demonstrably so by looking at Samsungs own previous tablet products or indeed Sony's brand-spankin-new products. Ditto for the host of other repeated falsehoods.
The growing volume of vitriol in the Register against Apple (and Sony and Oracle and ...) has become repetitive and mind numbing. These companies are successful for good reasons, and a few disaffected geeks with personality disorders and faulty reasoning frothing in internet fora are unlikely to have even the slightest effect on that success.
Really people, most of you need to get lives. And, if you dislike a product so much, then buy something else.
There was a time that the Register comments contained well reasoned analysis, pithy commentary and dare I say some rather good reading. These days, it seems this is less so.
And here is the Samsung digital photo frame from 2006, a whole year before the iPad was even announced. Who copied who?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/04/samsungs-digital-photo-frame/
and the HP tablet TC1100, also 2006
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tr/gallery/hptr1105/Image00021_small.jpg
As for 'if you dislike a product so much, then buy something else.' I did. I was looking at the HTC sensation as a new phone but as a direct result of Apples tactics have bought the Galaxy s2 instead. When I am in the market for a tablet it will be the Galaxy tab. Why? Because Apple don't want me to have it.
This is just another example of why all "Intellectual Property" law is completely pointless nads. As pointed out by Mises.org: it just protects lazy, greedy and arrogant corporations, like Apple, who don't like complete Capitalist competition!
This pointless BS just enriches lawyers, wastes product development time, raises the cost of products and causes waste due to incompatibility of parts.
..... I have news for you, you lost.
Apple won here, but you as a consumers have lost. With the lack of competition caused by this case there is no pressure for Apple to reduce their product costs. And the other positives that competition causes.
So Apple have won but we consumers have lost. But I suppose from the comments here Apple users are happy if they suffer as long as Jobs is happy....
All wrong. The iPad is the lowest cost of these products already.
When the lame competition gets their finger out and starts innovating, driving the technology forward at a lower price, then we will see the benefits of competition.
Until then all we can expect are poorly executed copies. It's pathetic.
Don't understand your comment. Do you mean the IPAD 1 or the IPAD 2 is the lowest cost?
If you meant the IPAD 1, please explain why other tablets would try to compete with an old model?
If you meant the IPAD 2, your statement is false as all the Tab models are exactly the same launch price as their IPAD 2 counterparts. I.e the same price for the same memory and connectivity options. At least in the UK.
And who said competition can only happen by having a lower price point. Having an advantage over the competition at the same price has the same effect. The Tab qualifies for this by being lighter and thinner than the IPAD 2 at the same price. Even if you don't rate those attributes others will.
"Until then all we can expect are poorly executed copies."
Well that's your opinion, but may not be the verdict of other consumers about the Tab. I am non partisan in this as I don't know whether the Tab or the IPAD 2 is better. But Apple seems to be trying to stop consumers from giving a verdict on this. Which as I said originally only benefits Apple and no-one else.
Y'know, I always liked Apple stuff... something that is simple, focused and that just works. Never bought any, but I respected the philosophy and admired the company for sticking with it. But such petty crap as this could well erase 3 decades of goodwill... I think it has obliterated mine.
The question we're missing here is not "how could this decision be made?", but "why was this decision made?" Lets not forget that the US has a strong political influence in Germany stretching back to the end of WW2. There's currently 50,000 US troops stationed in Germany (bet you didn't know that!) and the US has a net trading deficit with Germany worth $30bn to the German economy each year.
Then there's the bigger picture. Trade between Europe and the US is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to EU economies, and over two trillion Euros of mutual stock investments exist between the US and the EU. Trade between the EU and China are also very important, and who is one of China's biggest rivals? South Korea, home of Samsung.
In other words, it serves the German people to ban Samsung devices in Germany because it improves relations with the US and with China. Apple may have instigated the lawsuit, but German politicians will be quite happy to see the ban upheld. If Germany had turned round to Apple and told them to sling their hook, Germany would have lost out.
That is the clever part of what Apple did. The EU courts are much more pro free-market trade than the individual EU nations. If the European Courts had been asked to make a judgement they would have told Apple to bugger off. By attacking an individual EU member Apple took advantage of self-serving nationalism (of which Germany has plenty) and bypassed the higher ideals of the EU.
So, where is the EU? It really is time the EU government stepped in and gave Apple a firm rap on the knuckles for their anti-competitive activities.
In the 1960s during the Cold War, the British Army of the Rhine was about that size and it was a modest part of the forces opposing the Warsaw pact
The US has 50,000 troops in Europe to prove it's still the biggest player in NATO and as a reminder to Russian oligarchs not to stop the good burghers of Mittel Europe buying shiny electronic goods. Its also a well-established rear base for activities in the Middle East.
Samsung is Korean, there are nearly 30,000 US military personnel in South Korea - by your reckoning the US ought to allow Samsung to sell 3 tablets to everry 5 of Apples
This may work in samsungs favour. Ipad, or wannabe ipad owners will see all this case over the internet and news and think, "hmmm samsung is a copy of the ipad but cheaper".
im hoping that current apple owners will see what apple are doing to effectly create a monopoly will leave a sour taste in thier mouths and leave when thier next upgrade is due.
I just hope that samsung take this into account when apple want newer and more powerful componets from them
Samsung should plead to the court that Apple are merely using the judicial system as an anticompetitive tool to block sales of any competitive product. The relief they should seek is for the Apple iPad to be barred from sale as well until the court can resolve the entire matter on way or the other. That would ensure (a) prevent Apple from taking unfair advantage of the blocked sales of competitive products, and (b) ensure that both sides have a good incentive to sort out the whole mess.
"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods, your enemy has won. . "
Apple's big enemy used to be Microsoft. Now Apple are bigger than Microsoft, Apple are doing exactly the same as Microsoft used to do. If you can't beat the opposition in a straight fight and you can't buy them, then sue your competitors into the ground.
Oooh, what's the second item on this list?
It's a PAAD - Apple even copied the name. I thought the film studios were paranoid about their copyright; how come they haven't sued Apple yet?
BTW Anonymous coward 'it's about time'. Apple have created a load of basically useless fashion accessories. The world might just be a better place if people didn't waste their time rubbing their greasy fingers over bits of overpriced glass and did something useful instead.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
