

Apple Wins Court Order Blocking U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab - kapkapkap
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Apple-Wins-Court-Order-Blocking-U-S-Sales-of-3665695.php

======
jhdevos
The really weird thing is that "infringing product", in the judges order, is
basically equal to "product that only sells because it is ripping off the
other's patent". Even though that single aspect of the product (being a
rectangle with rounded corners) is obviously only a vanishingly small part of
the value of the product.

I simply cannot grasp why this seemed like a good tradeoff to the judge.

~~~
ghshephard
"Even though that single aspect of the product " - not to defend the more
blatant patent abuses, but during the trial, the Samsung attorney, Kathleen
Sullivan was unable to identify which was the iPad and which was the Galaxy
Tab.

I don't know if an injunction should have been granted, but it would be nice
if Samsung could design their product so I could distinguish it from an iPad
at a glance.

To be fair - I'm happy to rip on Apple when they clone the industrial design
of other companies products as well - I just don't have any examples that come
to mind immediately.

~~~
mikeash
There has to be more to that inability to identify the products. Surely the
Tab would be the one that says "Samsung" on the front, and the iPad would be
the one with the big Apple logo on the back.

~~~
cube13
Endgadget's preview from last
year([http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-
tab-8-9-an...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-and-
new-galaxy-tab-10-1-thinner-than-the/) ) doesn't have Samsung branding on the
front. It's on the back. It does appear that the current models have the
Samsung branding on the front, presumably because their legal department
slapped their designers after the suit started.

Honestly, at ~10 to 15 feet, I'm not sure if I could tell the difference
between the Tab and the iPad if the screens are off.

~~~
mikeash
If the screens are off and you're only allowed to see the front, I presume.
Which seems kind of artificial.

~~~
cube13
If I recall correctly, that's what the judge did. He held up both devices, one
in each hand, and asked the defense's council to identify which one was which.

They could not.

Ovbiously, this wasn't the only reason for the ruling, but it definitely hurt
Samsung's case.

~~~
mikeash
Which seems awfully contrived. In reality, the screen is often on, and you can
often see the back.

------
Artistry121
This is absurd.

1\. The marketing for the Galaxy Tab is far different from the marketing of
the iPad.

2\. Due to Apple's own rules they are usually separated into different
sections in stores.

3\. There are only so many form factors a tablet can take. Doesn't the Kindle
Fire look suspiciously like the Playbook?

This is ridiculous and $2.6 million seems like a small amount of damages for
Apple to be prepared to pay when they lose this case.

In any other industry this sort of patent would be unacceptable, it's painful
to see it being upheld.

~~~
gareim
While I think it's gone a bit too far, the situation isn't totally ridiculous.
Just to play devil's advocate here:

My girlfriend yesterday remarked to me that the SGS2 looks just like an
iPhone. She doesn't know anything about the lawsuits going on.

HTC makes tablets that look nothing like the iPad. I presume that Samsung
could too, if they wanted.

Even Samsung's chargers look similar.

The Kindle Fire and Playbook are manufactured by the same company and it's
speculated that the reason they look the same is so Amazon could bring the
tablet to market faster.

Look, if someone designed a product that looked like mine, I'd be pissed. So
the real question is, do they look alike?

I used to think they were similar, but not so similar as to justify an
injunction. But after what my girlfriend said, it's possible that people who
aren't familiar with tech like HNers are might actually think Tabs are iPads.

~~~
spot
the question is not "do they look alike". the patent is invalid if there was
prior art. and there was: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2011/08/24/139925696/samsung-objects-to-ipad-patent-saying-stanley-
kubrick-came-up-with-it-first)

~~~
Apple-Guy
The reason for the injunction is that the judge agree that the patent is valid
(prior art examples are invalid).

------
algolicious
Here's the ruling:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-
Rul...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-Ruling)

The injunction is being granted based on this patent:

<http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889>

It's a design patent granted in 2005 for an electronic device shaped like a
rounded rectangle. But it cites several other patents for other devices shaped
like rectangles. So is it the precise aspect ratio and thickness of their
rectangle that makes it unique? But the Galaxy Tab is substantially thinner
than the rectangle shown in this patent.

------
noonespecial
The new paradigm of industrial design. Design a new product, sell them 'till
the trolls catch up, move on to the next product. If you can't fix the patent
system, _outrun it_.

~~~
arjunnarayan
You've just described the haute couture fashion industry, which functions in
exactly this way because they can't copyright or patent their designs.

~~~
WalterSear
FWIW, the fashion induatry works this way on purpose, in order to drive
product. The factories that put out the knockoffs are often the ones that
produced the original. Knockoffs saturate the market making, last season's
product unfashionable, so haute couture consumers have to buy new stuff again.

As a corollary, the knockoffs subsidize the genuine article's production runs,
so both the manufacturers and the design companies benefit from this.

Source: my wife, working in manufacturing in Shenzhen right.now.

------
programminggeek
Look at the Microsoft Surface, it doesn't look like the iPad, it's not
marketed to look like the iPad. It doesn't line up icons and UI to look like
iOS.

Samsung's phones were designed to look as much like the iPhone and iPad as
possible. They didn't have to do this, but they did it as a way to get sales
by being "good enough" for people who couldn't get the iPhone on their network
when it was AT&T only.

Now that the Galaxy phones are popular enough, they are working a little
harder to look and feel different, which is to say, they no longer need to
copy Apple to be successful. Hopefully soon they do the same with their
tablets.

------
mtgx
Is the Galaxy Tab 10.1 even selling anymore? I think they started replacing it
with a few other products already.

------
jridgway
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

If Apple keeps waging patent war it is going to find itself in this position.

~~~
lftl
It would be kind of odd if the government accused Apple of abusing monopolies
it granted Apple in the first place.

~~~
jridgway
/joke

