

Apple Wins Permanent Ban on German Sales of Samsung Tablet - eren-tantekin
http://www.pcworld.com/article/239734/apple_wins_permanent_ban_on_german_sales_of_samsung_tablet.html

======
sgift
Just a quick note (IANAL, but I live in Germany): A district court is a rather
low court ("Landgericht" in german, "Amtsgericht" would be lower, but they
don't handle such cases). Samsungs next step probably will be to appeal this
case at the "Oberlandesgericht". If they also loose there they can appeal the
case at the BGH ("Bundesgerichtshof"), which is the highest german court for
such court cases (the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" would be a higher court, but
only handles matters of constitution). BGH decisions are usually final
(ignoring appeals to EU courts).

So, long story short: This is a problem for Samsung, but at the moment nothing
is "permanent".

~~~
Triumvark
> ignoring appeals to EU courts

Won't this be relevant for an issue of international trade?

Beyond that, perhaps even WTO appeals would need to be considered...

~~~
sgift
I think both cases (EU courts/WTO) are relevant but my knowledge of appeals to
EU or WTO is shaky, so I cannot comment on this. Maybe someone else can help
us out?

~~~
arethuza
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court in the EU for matters
covered by EU laws - if there is a relevant law then presumably the case could
get appealed all the way up to the ECJ.

Not sure about the WTO - wouldn't South Korea have to take on Samsung's case
there against Germany?

~~~
Atropos
That is correct, only disputes between countries are settled to WTO law.
German courts and the ECJ do not apply WTO law.

------
testcock1
The judge's justification here sounds flimsy at best. Both tablets are
"minimalist and modern" with "flat screens and round edges"? So Samsung can
only make archaically designed tablets, if possible with a curved screen?

And then: "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't
the only technical solution to make a tablet computer," Brueckner-Hoffmann
explained, "other designs are possible."

I'm not a lawyer, so I might get laughed out here, but this just seems like a
ridiculous claim. Other designs are possible, that much is true. You can make
a car with 5 wheels and the engine in the passenger's seat too, doesn't mean
there's going to be a market for it. My common sense might be too common, but
I hope this gets thrown out at higher levels of the court.

Edit: To clarify, I own neither, and I am not interested in either, I just
found the situation too absurd not to chime in.

~~~
sjmulder
From what I remember, tablets before the iPad looked rather different[1]. The
full glass/plastic front hadn’t really been tried. Early [Apple tablet
mockups[1][2] based on the iPod touch, though close, lacked the thick black
border and the now iconic home screen. Those features are now considered
obvious, but clearly, they really weren’t.

1: <http://i.eho.st/pj6inev7.jpg>, 2: <http://i.eho.st/pjmwl2m3.jpg>, 3:
<http://i.eho.st/pjlqdsyx.jpg>

~~~
nextparadigms
So does that mean Apple now has a monopoly on capacitive tablets with slim
bodies? It's still ridiculous when you think about it. That's how competition
happens in a given market - by building similar features. Apple does it, too.

------
josteink
And Apple takes another PR hit. It's like they want us to hate them.

Like the article posted here the other day said "I want a MacBook Air not made
by Apple". I think the Macbook Air looks sexy, but no way I'm funnelling money
into an organisation this hellbent on taking away my choices.

Here's hoping Apple and it's power-crazy, trigger-happy lawyers are a short-
lived phenomenon which goes away when people stop buying their products as a
protest.

~~~
llambda
Unfortunately I think that you've been misled by the high-profile nature of
all-things-Apple: these patent suits are common practice and as I understand
it par for the course in the industry but because of Apple's popularity (in
the media) these cases involving Apple are put under a spotlight. Don't
confuse this with Apple somehow being an (evil) exception to natural conduct
in the industry. Note also that Samsung has infringment suits against Apple.
And of course there are many other cases not related to Apple that involve
design infringement. This is how the game is played, for better or worse. I
don't think you'll find a major company out there that doesn't concern itself
with patents and legal action against its competitors when it feels it may
have the grounds to do so.

Edit: Hm, I don't want to speak too quickly here, but after looking at your
profile I'm guessing that you already have a strong opinion about Apple that
I'm not likely to sway. So if you've made up your mind, fair enough. No sense
in arguing about it. I just thought I would provide a counterpoint to what
seems to be a common misconception about these suits.

~~~
cgranade
Patent suits are all too common a practice, I agree, but it has become quite
clear over the past year that Apple is going well beyond the pack in their use
of patents to shut out competitors. This injunction isn't a shakedown, but an
attempt to deny a competitor the right to participate in the market.

------
2muchcoffeeman
Wow. Apple probably should not have won this one. But I can't help but compare
to laptops. Lenovo, Apple,Sony, Dell. All have unique styles. They are all
producing different looking cuboid electronics.

Samsung in comparison just looks lazy.

~~~
lurch_mojoff
The important thing is not whether Apple should or shouldn't have won, but
that they did. A court of law, as biased as it may be, has concluded that
Apple’s complaint has merit. And now that may serve as precedent for Apple to
use in other jurisdictions. Samsung are getting deeper into the crapper.

~~~
0x12
You are 100% right, but Apple has seen the last of my purchases. Not that they
could care one bit but this kind of lawsuit is utterly ridiculous in my
opinion, which may not be as powerful as the German courts but it counts for
something.

Apple has won this battle, here's to hoping they will lose the war.

Imagine if every car manufacturer would have to come up with a new user
interface for the basics of the vehicle, if having front, rear and side
windows would somehow be considered something that you could have the rights
to.

~~~
atonse
Do you think that BMW wouldn't sue Volvo if they built a car that looked
identical on the outside, regardless of what's on the inside?

Brands each have a signature look. Sure, when there are frivolous patents that
are a poison on the industry, but this is about whether Samsung crossed the
line in how deceptively close their tabs look to an iPad. The German court
seems to think they did. And I bet they did more analysis than most of us.

~~~
0x12
Try this: just look at the side of a bunch of cars, if you can tell them apart
you've got a better eye for this than I do, but ever since the 'windtunnel'
took over as a designer I am having a harder and harder time telling cars
apart. Plenty of brands have caught on to this and actually share 90%+ of the
basic design of the car and concentrate on the interior to differentiate the
brands. The biggest difference on the outside is the logo on the hood.

Once physics and usability enter in to the design process the constraints can
be such that there will be fewer and fewer options and room to play without
impacting those in a negative way.

Design is always a compromise. By going for a minimalist design you remove all
of that room so any minimalist design for a device will likely be very much
like every other minimalist design.

~~~
bonaldi
You can always spot the BMW by the Hofmeister Kink. If Volvo copied that, I
bet BMW'd sue.

~~~
0x12
How does that impact functionality?

~~~
ugh
? This lawsuit is not about functionality at all. It’s purely about looks,
it’s about a design patent.

~~~
0x12
My point is that once you take away all design and go for minimalist that you
can't change it much beyond that without impacting functionality.

The Hofmeister kind is an _addition_ that does not impact functionality, it is
the opposite of going for something minimalist. It is a design component
specifically added as a signature.

Now if Apple had _added_ a feature that is not relevant to functionality
instead of removing a whole pile of stuff that was not relevant and someone
copied that particular element they'd have a case imo. As it stands all
they've done is taken the device to its logical conclusion. That should not be
a protectable configuration.

------
dsplittgerber
Just a quick clarification: this ban is not about patents, at all. It is only
based on a registered "design patent" (Geschmacksmuster), which is wholly
different from regular patents and protects specifically the aesthetics of a
product (design, colour, form) - which is why the decision sounds flimsy at
times, because they had to compare aesthetics.

------
MrKurtHaeusler
Oh well, I am always looking for excuses to drive to the Netherlands anyway.
Sheiß Apple

------
skrebbel
At Asus they are now toasting champagne.

