9 ms·

Apple Wins Court Order Blocking U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab

45 points by kapkapkap 14y ago

jhdevos 14y ago
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 14y ago
  "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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      Endgadget's preview from last year(http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-and-new-galaxy-tab-10-1-thinner-than-the/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-an... ) 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 14y ago
        If the screens are off and you're only allowed to see the front, I presume. Which seems kind of artificial.
        cube13 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        Which seems awfully contrived. In reality, the screen is often on, and you can often see the back.
mtgx 14y ago
Is the Galaxy Tab 10.1 even selling anymore? I think they started replacing it with a few other products already.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
noonespecial 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
Artistry121 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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/samsung-objects-to-ipad-patent-saying-stanley-kubrick-came-up-with-it-first http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam...
    - Apple-Guy 14y ago
      The reason for the injunction is that the judge agree that the patent is valid (prior art examples are invalid).
shareme 14y ago
Apple running scared.. come on Apple little afraid of competing?
programminggeek 14y ago
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.
jridgway 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft 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 14y ago
  It would be kind of odd if the government accused Apple of abusing monopolies it granted Apple in the first place.
  - jridgway 14y ago
    /joke
algolicious 14y ago
Here's the ruling: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-Ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-Rul... The injunction is being granted based on this patent: http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889 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.

45 points by kapkapkap 14y ago

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 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Endgadget's preview from last year(http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-and-new-galaxy-tab-10-1-thinner-than-the/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-an... ) 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 14y ago
      If the screens are off and you're only allowed to see the front, I presume. Which seems kind of artificial.
      - cube13 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        Which seems awfully contrived. In reality, the screen is often on, and you can often see the back.

mtgx 14y ago

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

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

noonespecial 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.

Artistry121 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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/samsung-objects-to-ipad-patent-saying-stanley-kubrick-came-up-with-it-first http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam...
  - Apple-Guy 14y ago
    The reason for the injunction is that the judge agree that the patent is valid (prior art examples are invalid).

shareme 14y ago

Apple running scared.. come on Apple little afraid of competing?

programminggeek 14y ago

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.

jridgway 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft 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 14y ago
It would be kind of odd if the government accused Apple of abusing monopolies it granted Apple in the first place.
- jridgway 14y ago
  /joke

algolicious 14y ago

Here's the ruling: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-Ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/98367038/Galaxy-Tab-Injunction-Rul... The injunction is being granted based on this patent: http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889 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.