7 ms·

Apple wins EU-wide ban on Galaxy Tab 7.7; Tab 10.1N not covered

45 points by mootothemax 14y ago

ma2xd 14y ago
And the patent abuse continues...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
veidr 14y ago
News flash from 2022: "Cauliflower wins APAC-wide ban on Broccoli; Broccolini not covered"
ajross 14y ago
I await the apologetics from the "It's an extremely narrow design patent" camp who claimed that this would never apply to a device even slightly different, physically, from an iPad. Sigh. Obviously the action itself isn't a big deal in isolation, being against a device that isn't selling much anyway. But it's time to admit to ourselves that Apple is simply a bad actor, and it's only a matter of time before they hurt something for real.
- gioele 14y ago
  > a device that isn't selling much anyway. In EU, Samsung Galaxy Tabs (either 10 or 7) are the only non-iPad tablets I've seen in the hands of not technical people. Most phone carriers offer cheaper mobile data plans bundled with a Galaxy Tab. I have no data at hand, but I'm pretty sure that they are the only non-Apple tablets with a 2-digit percentage of the current EU market. They are also much appreciated by people that call them "iPads", the kind of people who mostly use the Facebook app, the camera app and, seldom, the browser.
steelaz 14y ago
Here is comparison between original (banned) 10.1 and new 10.1N model that court deemed sufficiently different from iPad - http://i.imgur.com/NhlGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NhlGO.jpg (top one is 10.1N).
- rplnt 14y ago
  I'm positively surprised that such slight change is OK. If this is how things work I don't really have problem with bogus apple design patents. Such us for Air that could hurt one or two manufacturers but not others. And even those two can avoid it with just a few cosmetic changes (so not a huge economic impact). People were afraid that it's much more dangerous.
  - cube13 14y ago
    That's pretty much the point of design patents. They're there to make sure that purely ornamental design decisions(for example, the metal bezel on the outside of the iPad) cannot be copied by a competitor to confuse potential customers.
    - Goronmon 14y ago
      A metal bezel on the outside of a rectangle made of metal doesn't seem like a very important design decision that is worthy of a patent.
  - ajross 14y ago
    It got the device banned from the market, how is that not "dangerous". It's not like you can ask the court ahead of time. Manufacturers are forced to go to production, enter the market and roll the dice awaiting lawsuits. You think Apple would have just said "gray is OK" if you asked them ahead of time? (edit: and just to point out the inanity, I got the distinction wrong . Gray is not OK, the lighter one is the infringing model. I guess it's something else.) And note that it's not just any "slight change" that works. Shrinking it by 30% did not, for example.
    - 14y ago
soapdog 14y ago
I am the only one that is really tired of all those silly disputes between apple and samsung? I think apple is being so silly in all these that to protest I purchased an samsung tablet.
- SODaniel 14y ago
  I am just 'done' with Apple. Getting the Google Nexus and retiring my iPad.
- Goronmon 14y ago
  As long as the courts reward that silliness, they seem to care more about hurting competition to worry about whether they should continue on this path.
- naner 14y ago
  I don't think they are being silly, they are being malicious and anti-competitive.
SODaniel 14y ago
I am really getting seriously disappointed in Apple. I don't care at all about their excuse that 'we are just buying patents to fight patent trolls' anymore. Obviously, they are patent trolls themselves and should be treated as just that. Pathetic of a close to trillion dollar company to stave off competition by throwing lawyers and BS patents around.
- shadowfiend 14y ago
  I'm not a fan of how Apple is going about this, but. To me, a patent troll is a company that holds a patent and wields it aggressively without producing anything, and that's the way I've generally seen the term used. Clearly Apple doesn't fit this definition, as they are both making and selling tons of devices that use these patents. In fact, there's nothing you can really say that indicates Apple is misusing patents. They are, unfortunately, using patents exactly the way patents are meant to be used. Patents are meant to stifle innovation in a direction that's already been taken. It's their purpose: exclusive rights for however many years in exchange for public disclosure. The only critique that I think can be made of Apple's use of patents at this point is that they're using them at all (which is a perfectly valid critique, mind you).
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    The issue is, you should never be granted obvious patents like "swipe to unlock". Mobile phones / tablets are fairly trivial by now. Computer, touchscreen, software. It's not rocket science. Nothing there should really be patentable IMHO.
    - runn1ng 14y ago
      Truth to be said, the things that are obvious now were not obvious at all in 2007.
      - gaius 14y ago
        That's exactly it. Any of us could write a program to calculate E=MC2 in a minute. These anti-patent types think this means they're all Einsteins.
mrich 14y ago
I wonder what the Apple execs are thinking. 1) "Steve wanted to nuke them, this is what he wanted! LETS KEEP DOING IT FOR STEVE!" 2) "Damn, we don't know whether we should release product A or product B. Neither of them are really polished and nobody cares anymore now that Steve is gone. Let's go to plan C which always works: sue the competition!" Either way, I fear Apple is going to end up in the same state as they ended up without Steve last time.
mark_l_watson 14y ago
That sucks. I have been a long time Apple supporter and I am disappointed in them. That said, Samsung should play the game and make their stuff look different. I just got a Samsung Galaxy S III phone: fantastic device (1280 x 720 pixel screen). Really awesome :-) I find myself using it instead of my iPad (although the iPad is great for web browsing and Netflix).
pasbesoin 14y ago
I suppose the following deserves downvotes in the HN context, but man, I'm just fucking tired of all this BS. Patents are granted, ultimately, by "the people" (U.S. context, at least) to promote productive activity. At this point, "the people" should rise up and tell this army of lawyers and designers that, ok, you can't have your patents anymore. (Now go do something useful.) Reality is that property, including IP, is a social contract, not some divine absolute. -- Star Trek... (whatever number the movies are up to). The team comes back from the future, to invalidate countless destructive patents by presenting a "pad" mockup from the set of "The Next Generation". Counter-point: They are promptly stripped of their "future-ware" by lawyers (and the DOJ, of course, who does the actual stripping in full battle armor) who point out that there's now a patent on "pants having two legs " that will most certainly be extended ad infinitum into their timeframe. Side plot: What happened to the whales' residuals?
postfuturist 14y ago
This makes Apple look rather pathetic. Can't they just spend the energy to improve the product? The correct response to competition is to be better, not appeal to the law to stifle competition. I think the term here is "patent weasel".

45 points by mootothemax 14y ago

ma2xd 14y ago

And the patent abuse continues...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

veidr 14y ago

News flash from 2022: "Cauliflower wins APAC-wide ban on Broccoli; Broccolini not covered"

ajross 14y ago

I await the apologetics from the "It's an extremely narrow design patent" camp who claimed that this would never apply to a device even slightly different, physically, from an iPad. Sigh. Obviously the action itself isn't a big deal in isolation, being against a device that isn't selling much anyway. But it's time to admit to ourselves that Apple is simply a bad actor, and it's only a matter of time before they hurt something for real.

gioele 14y ago
> a device that isn't selling much anyway. In EU, Samsung Galaxy Tabs (either 10 or 7) are the only non-iPad tablets I've seen in the hands of not technical people. Most phone carriers offer cheaper mobile data plans bundled with a Galaxy Tab. I have no data at hand, but I'm pretty sure that they are the only non-Apple tablets with a 2-digit percentage of the current EU market. They are also much appreciated by people that call them "iPads", the kind of people who mostly use the Facebook app, the camera app and, seldom, the browser.

steelaz 14y ago

Here is comparison between original (banned) 10.1 and new 10.1N model that court deemed sufficiently different from iPad - http://i.imgur.com/NhlGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NhlGO.jpg (top one is 10.1N).

rplnt 14y ago
I'm positively surprised that such slight change is OK. If this is how things work I don't really have problem with bogus apple design patents. Such us for Air that could hurt one or two manufacturers but not others. And even those two can avoid it with just a few cosmetic changes (so not a huge economic impact). People were afraid that it's much more dangerous.
- cube13 14y ago
  That's pretty much the point of design patents. They're there to make sure that purely ornamental design decisions(for example, the metal bezel on the outside of the iPad) cannot be copied by a competitor to confuse potential customers.
  - Goronmon 14y ago
    A metal bezel on the outside of a rectangle made of metal doesn't seem like a very important design decision that is worthy of a patent.
- ajross 14y ago
  It got the device banned from the market, how is that not "dangerous". It's not like you can ask the court ahead of time. Manufacturers are forced to go to production, enter the market and roll the dice awaiting lawsuits. You think Apple would have just said "gray is OK" if you asked them ahead of time? (edit: and just to point out the inanity, I got the distinction wrong . Gray is not OK, the lighter one is the infringing model. I guess it's something else.) And note that it's not just any "slight change" that works. Shrinking it by 30% did not, for example.
  - 14y ago

soapdog 14y ago

I am the only one that is really tired of all those silly disputes between apple and samsung? I think apple is being so silly in all these that to protest I purchased an samsung tablet.

SODaniel 14y ago
I am just 'done' with Apple. Getting the Google Nexus and retiring my iPad.
Goronmon 14y ago
As long as the courts reward that silliness, they seem to care more about hurting competition to worry about whether they should continue on this path.
naner 14y ago
I don't think they are being silly, they are being malicious and anti-competitive.

SODaniel 14y ago

I am really getting seriously disappointed in Apple. I don't care at all about their excuse that 'we are just buying patents to fight patent trolls' anymore. Obviously, they are patent trolls themselves and should be treated as just that. Pathetic of a close to trillion dollar company to stave off competition by throwing lawyers and BS patents around.

shadowfiend 14y ago
I'm not a fan of how Apple is going about this, but. To me, a patent troll is a company that holds a patent and wields it aggressively without producing anything, and that's the way I've generally seen the term used. Clearly Apple doesn't fit this definition, as they are both making and selling tons of devices that use these patents. In fact, there's nothing you can really say that indicates Apple is misusing patents. They are, unfortunately, using patents exactly the way patents are meant to be used. Patents are meant to stifle innovation in a direction that's already been taken. It's their purpose: exclusive rights for however many years in exchange for public disclosure. The only critique that I think can be made of Apple's use of patents at this point is that they're using them at all (which is a perfectly valid critique, mind you).
- mibbitier 14y ago
  The issue is, you should never be granted obvious patents like "swipe to unlock". Mobile phones / tablets are fairly trivial by now. Computer, touchscreen, software. It's not rocket science. Nothing there should really be patentable IMHO.
  - runn1ng 14y ago
    Truth to be said, the things that are obvious now were not obvious at all in 2007.
    - gaius 14y ago
      That's exactly it. Any of us could write a program to calculate E=MC2 in a minute. These anti-patent types think this means they're all Einsteins.

mrich 14y ago

I wonder what the Apple execs are thinking. 1) "Steve wanted to nuke them, this is what he wanted! LETS KEEP DOING IT FOR STEVE!" 2) "Damn, we don't know whether we should release product A or product B. Neither of them are really polished and nobody cares anymore now that Steve is gone. Let's go to plan C which always works: sue the competition!" Either way, I fear Apple is going to end up in the same state as they ended up without Steve last time.

mark_l_watson 14y ago

That sucks. I have been a long time Apple supporter and I am disappointed in them. That said, Samsung should play the game and make their stuff look different. I just got a Samsung Galaxy S III phone: fantastic device (1280 x 720 pixel screen). Really awesome :-) I find myself using it instead of my iPad (although the iPad is great for web browsing and Netflix).

pasbesoin 14y ago

I suppose the following deserves downvotes in the HN context, but man, I'm just fucking tired of all this BS. Patents are granted, ultimately, by "the people" (U.S. context, at least) to promote productive activity. At this point, "the people" should rise up and tell this army of lawyers and designers that, ok, you can't have your patents anymore. (Now go do something useful.) Reality is that property, including IP, is a social contract, not some divine absolute. -- Star Trek... (whatever number the movies are up to). The team comes back from the future, to invalidate countless destructive patents by presenting a "pad" mockup from the set of "The Next Generation". Counter-point: They are promptly stripped of their "future-ware" by lawyers (and the DOJ, of course, who does the actual stripping in full battle armor) who point out that there's now a patent on "pants having two legs " that will most certainly be extended ad infinitum into their timeframe. Side plot: What happened to the whales' residuals?

postfuturist 14y ago

This makes Apple look rather pathetic. Can't they just spend the energy to improve the product? The correct response to competition is to be better, not appeal to the law to stifle competition. I think the term here is "patent weasel".