

Apple actually lost in Dutch court, not the opposite - runn1ng
http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/08/samsung-v-apple-in-nl-happy-selling-samsung/

======
runn1ng
For the interest - video of the Knight Ridder Newspad (from 1994!), that was
used as a prior design by the court. Very interesting, if a little too
talkative

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI>

~~~
kbutler
Nice. Key elements at 2:30 - 1994 description of how tablets would be
pervasive, image could be a (larger) iPad, and the statement that tablets
would be for consumption and we may still use desktops for creating content.

It looks like it may have a slightly raised bezel around the screen, and it's
a stylus based interface, but it's primarily a display in a rounded rectangle
with a narrow black border, and it appears to lack other buttons.

------
blrgeek
Cache, since site isn't working

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/08/samsung-
v-apple-in-nl-happy-selling-
samsung/&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=AmS&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&strip=1)

------
talmand
The first article I saw only really mentioned that Samsung was banned from
selling certain phones in the jurisdiction. APPLE WON!! YAY!! They said world
will now be a better place, somehow.

After reading the second and third articles on the same topic that claimed
Apple won (because of the BAN) I was confused. It seemed to me that Apple
didn't really win anything at all. Especially with the majority of the points
Apple were making being tossed.

I don't get the logic; Company A sues Company B over five bullet points,
Company A loses four of them and wins one, Company A somehow wins the entire
case. How exactly?

Am I missing something?

------
jsight
Is there an explanation somewhere of how the gallery in 2.x infringed, but the
gallery in 3.x does not? It's not immediately clear to me how the two are
significantly different.

~~~
jwildeboer
Yes, in the verdict. The patent is on two things that are relevant here. 1:
When you slide through pictures with your finger, and you move one picture to
the right, is the empty space on the left filled with parts of the new
picture? If yes, you infringe! 2. If you slide a picture a bit and remove your
finger, does the picture pop back to the centre? If yes, you infringe!

Is this a ridiculous patent? Yes. But hey, that's the system.

Android 3.0 on tablets does not have this functionality as they run on a big
screen with a different approach, hence Android 3.0 and thus also the Galaxy
Tab that runs with 3.0 is not infringing. As this was the _only_ surviving
point of Apple (all design stuff, copyright, copycat, patent claims have been
thrown out) it needs a trivial fix from Samsung - that they already promised
to deliver - and Samsung is the big winner here. Today the whole circus moves
to germany, Düsseldorf court. Should be fun!

~~~
antihero
Doesn't anything that use Gallery3D thus infringe? (every AOSP based Android
phone)

------
danmaz74
Thank you very much for this info. It's a pity to see that once again the
media got it all wrong.

------
mijnpc
Amazing. I read the Dutch version also.

Funny that if you google this, you mostly find articles that says other wise
:(

------
barista
Unfortunately its the end result taht matters.

~~~
hartror
Did you RTFA? The end result is a minor software change has to be deployed by
Samsung, software which is already in Android 3.0.

