
Court allows Samsung Galaxy Tab to again sell in Europe - tilt
http://gigaom.com/mobile/court-allows-samsung-galaxy-tab-to-again-sell-in-europe/
======
davedx
I'm getting pretty tired of these stories and tech companies in general. At
the end of the day it's a touch screen that can connect to the Internet and
run some software. When will the patent/IP madness end?

~~~
monochromatic
And yet somehow they're wildly more successful than tablets were a decade ago.
Perhaps there actually is something more to them than a touch screen, an
internet connection, and the ability to run software...

~~~
noonespecial
Yep. A battery. A decade ago they ran for about 20 minutes.

~~~
jsight
Yes, the battery of the previous tablets were much smaller. But don't forget,
the previous tablets also cost close to 2k at introduction, had similar speed
processors (but running more complex operating systems, with lower
responsiveness), had lower quality displays, were thicker, and weighed a lot
more.

I don't see any of those improvements as being particularly non-obvious.

~~~
roc
Previous tablets were a completely different beast. Microsoft spent 10 years
trying to graft a touch-layer on top of a traditional operating system.

The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC innovations:
they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the legacy
overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and limited,
optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the point where
the battery _could_ last more than 20 minutes.

Truly, innovations in hardware allowed them to put more horsepower with a
longer running time in the case than MS could have ever achieved in the 90s.
But as of 2008, Microsoft was still following the "full PC+touch" strategy.
(For that matter they seem intent on continuing to flog that horse even
today.)

And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a _failure_ to
most industry observers in 2009. Even the more optimistic observers forecast
merely a solid _niche_ product.

Now I'm not arguing that what Apple did should necessarily be protectable
under the various forms of IP law, but implying that it was "obvious" seems
deeply unfair.

Particularly if the story of the birth of the iPhone was accurate. That is:
that the iPad was not born of a project to scale up the iPhone, but that
iPhone was born from the idea to shrink an already-under-development iPad.
Pushing the iPad concept and strategy back to at least 2005/2006.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>The iPad's non-obvious innovation was essentially to roll back PC
innovations: they massively pared down the operating system, stripped out the
legacy overhead and focused applications on small, tightly controlled and
limited, optimized binaries, so they could scale back the hardware to the
point where the battery could last more than 20 minutes.

>And let's not forget that what looks obvious now, looked like a failure to
most industry observers in 2009.

All well and good, but what does that make the Crunchpad? Chopped liver?
Imagine if they had the backing of a multibillion dollar company or weren't
ripped off by their partner with the JooJoo.

[http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0004/6593/4...](http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0004/6593/46593v1.jpg)

Is it just me or is there some selective amnesia bordering on revisionist
history going on all the iPad stories and comments?

[http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-
web-t...](http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-
help-us-build-it/)

~~~
roc
And, IIRC, the Crunchpad concept was widely met with doubt and derision as
well. A niche within the core geek niche was on board with the idea. But by
and large, netbooks were expected to win out.

Arrington's publicizing the concept may speak to whether the invention ought
to be legally protectable (depending on whether the iPad did precede the
iPhone). But given that no tablet producers were on board, it certainly
doesn't somehow invalidate the non-obviousness of the concept.

Certainly, I grant all credit due to Arrington and the FusionGarage folks for
recognizing the innovation. I just don't see how their experience is any sort
of counterpoint.

------
Isofarro
1.) A German court lifted an injunction in the EU nations, except Germany
itself

2.) Apple misled the courts by offering altered images of Samsung's Galaxy
Tab. In the filed documents, the pictures of both the iPad and Galaxy Tab
appear to be the same size. In reality, the Galaxy Tab uses a different sized
screen and aspect ratio than Apple's tablet.

Both of those datapoints are intriguing.

~~~
othermaciej
Intriguing, but apparently not related to each other. The injunction was
suspended outside Germany solely due to a dispute over whether the Düsseldorf
district court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung Korea.

[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-
tab-101-injun...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-
tab-101-injunction-suspended-for.html)

~~~
fpgeek
True, but IIRC the altered photographs are getting their day in court August
25th (Samsung's appeal of the now-limited injunction).

~~~
patrickyan
IIRC only one photograph was stretched, while the others were the correct
aspect ratio.

------
BonoboBoner
The funny thing is, this whole court decision has made me aware of the new
GalaxyTab 10.1 in a way I would not have been if it was not for Apple's
litigation. I checked out reviews on YouTube and compared it to the iPad, etc.

Isnt it counter-productive for Apple to make customers aware of their
competitor's products that way? A lot of customers are gonna think "If they
are sueing them, that alternative tablet must be worth checkin out."

~~~
technoslut
I doubt that any average user has any idea of what is going on. I'm sure their
concerns lie elsewhere. Anyone willing to pay attention to this is a minority
within a minority.

~~~
danieldk
True, I fully agree. But Apple is loved by a somewhat large contingent of
developers, small software vendors, and tech enthusiasts. That relationship
can quickly turn sour, which may harm them to some extend. Not directly, but
tech people's hate of Microsoft 10-15 years ago also had an effect on the
larger group. The NT branch of Windows has always been very stable, and
supplanted 9x a long time ago, still for many people Windows is equivalent to
instability and blue screens of death. There's a lot of parrotting.

~~~
glassx
I think that Apple's relationship with geeks/tech-enthusiasts has been sour
since the beginning. The "I'm a Mac" advertisements make it pretty clear that
they definitely don't want to be a "corporate brand" or a "geeky brand", even
though they're mainly an engineering and industrial design company.

In fact, the more Apple distances itself from those kinds of geeks/tech-
enthusiats, the more successful it is.

------
mongol
From the article: " this time suggesting that Apple misled the courts by
offering altered images of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab".

Isn't it amazing that the court can make such wide-reaching decisions just by
looking at images, rather than the actual devices? It would not be a very
complicated thing to present the physical devices as evidence in this kind of
case.

~~~
jonknee
Judges get really annoyed when lawyers try and play tricks like that. Get
caught trying to fool a judge and you'll be on the losing side every time.

------
tylerneylon
About the questionable evidence images:

The actual Samsung aspect ratio (of the full device) is about 1.46, while the
photo makes it look closer to 1.36. The iPad's image is more accurate at
around 1.3. The vertical lines in the image (closer together around the
Galaxy) probably make the aspect ratios appear even more similar.

Here's a larger image of the evidence: [http://blog.webwereld.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/screensh...](http://blog.webwereld.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/screenshot-page-28.png)

~~~
weiran
It's not related to the dodgy photograph of the Tab.

------
iwwr
Is there going to be disruptive tech that can eliminate the political
advantage of these IP thugs (rent-seekers) ? Perhaps ultra-cheap
manufacturing?

~~~
orangecat
Ha. If you think the current round of IP wars is insane, just wait until we
have cheap and effective 3d printers.

~~~
iwwr
It's much easier to target companies and a few key manufacturers, than
millions of home printers.

~~~
bergie
Exactly, home printers will be about as hard to target as torrenters, except
that there is even less network trace to be used

~~~
roc
They'll trace via downloads/torrents of the plans, natch.

------
hucker
If Apple did indeed fake some of the evidence, it will be interesting to see
how Samsung chooses to retaliate. This surely has to border on anti-trust?

~~~
ghurlman
No, just fraud.

------
barista
Too bad Jobs' reality distortion does not work on the european courts.

