UK Judge: Samsung Wins Over Apple In Patent Dispute Because Its Tablet Isn't As Cool As iPad
from the that's-one-way-to-do-it dept
While the judge in the US banned Samsung's devices claiming it was likely that Samsung violated Apple's patents, there was a different result in the UK... where a judge has decided that Samsung didn't violate Apple's design patent, because it's obvious that Samsung's Galaxy Tab is just not as cool as Apple's iPad."They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," said Judge Birss.Amusingly, of course, this puts Samsung in the position of celebrating its lack of coolness.
"They are not as cool," he said. "The overall impression produced is different."
In the end, this is the right result, but the reasoning is a bit odd, frankly. When patent disputes are being determined based on a judge's determination of "coolness," it seems like perhaps something is wrong with the system itself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coolness, galaxy tab, ipad, uk
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Since when does 'cool' become... A reason to...
...I think my brain just exploded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm so Hot, I'm smokin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Plus, it's a feature, not a bug. Their devices can be used to keep you warm in the winter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when does 'cool' become... A reason to...
...I think my brain just exploded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/07/09/samsung_burnt_galaxy_s_iii_probe_reveals_micr owave_damage/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Must try harder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm!
On the other hand, when I think of the other, "merely" Nice girls, well, they don't seem to have suffered from nearly so many major failure causing defects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This also makes appeal awkward for Apple..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those who are not:
Apple focuses a lot on simplicity. On most phones you'll find about 50 buttons and ports and slots all around the edges of the phone. On the iPhone, there's only 4 buttons total, 2 ports, and one switch. The SIM card slot is placed in such a way that it is flush with the edge of the phone. Why? Because that's all you need. You usually only need to put in the SIM card once (or never if on Verizon) so it is tucked out of the way. They put in a good battery, so they put that out of the way as well. There is no microSD slot since managing flash storage on a phone can be a hassle, so they made that not a problem (and you should be able to fit plenty on a 32 GB iphone, I couldn't imagine coming close to filling a 64 GB one).
On the iPad, there are also only 4 buttons (1 on front), 1 switch, a headphone jack and a dock connector. The iPad is also designed in such a way that the buttons on the side aren't visible from the front so they aren't distracting you. There's also no prominently displayed Apple logo on the front like on the Galaxy Tab.
The operating system also exhibits the simplicity that Apple strives for. I've looked at Android tablets before. When I see the home screen on them, the first word that comes to mind is cluttered. Everything is really crammed together and, in my opinion, that makes it harder to use. One advantage of Android is that it is more customizable, however, this comes at the cost of compatibility issues arising. For iOS apps, apps either work or they don't for a specific device/OS version. For Android apps, developers would have to make apps that work on several resolutions, several hardware configurations, and several devices. As a person who has a custom gaming rig that is better than the computer of most people I know, Android looks a lot like development hell. Apple has a lot of consistency, so I don't have to change the layout of my applications much when the iPad 8 comes out boasting a 4096x3072 screen resolution.
I might also want to mention that everyone immediately started copying the iPhone as soon as it came out, but I have a feeling I'd lose that debate horribly on here... I'll drop this image here anyway...
http://www.idrugged.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/befroe-and-after-iphone.jpg
To be honest, if everyone blatantly copied my design like that and fucked up the simplicity at the core like that, I'd want to sue everyone too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Galaxy Tab has an Apple logo on the front?
That didn't take em long.Shows how desperate they are to be cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fucking moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:528KB
1. It's 640KB and it's a quote by one Wiilam Henry Gates III in reference to the maximum amount on the IBM.
2. RAM was super expensive in the early 80's and cost upwards of US$1,000 per megabyte.
3. The first Macintosh (1984) had 128KB of ram.
3a. The doomed Apple Lisa (of which Steve Jobs had no affiliation to that product) cost US$10,000. Most of that was because it had 1Megabyte of RAM and that cost would be the only way to recover the cost of marketing and manufacturing
4. Bill Gates referred to 640KB RAM being all the RAM MSDos needed to run so it won't read any more than that.
Now judging by your response "528kb of storage is enough for everybody", you are either Trolling, are no older than 18 and grew up in an erra where you had more than 32MB of RAM to work with on a regular basis for all your life, or both. You know nothing of the past or make a mockery of important human history, neither of which I tolerate very easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:528KB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:528KB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Fashion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Fashion
whodathunkit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Fashion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't really think Apple should have crap to stand on for being there first to market with a design everyone wanted to do back in the 90s. Other than control of the market while everyone else catches up. They didn't do anything patentable. They took hardware someone else made, which is patentable, and shoved it together in an exceedingly obvious way. Just no one else wanted to take the monetary risk. They've been rewarded for that, look how many iphones have sold, they've made billions. But that shouldn't let them control the market once other competitors enter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Function over form
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Function over form
However, it was the first tablet to actually gain any sort of popularity and thus market share and actually be considered a success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Function over form
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Function over form
Also, if that was indeed what you were trying to say, say it clearly. Do not state, they were the first ones to create a tablet when that wasn't the case. If you do so, you will be corrected. Say they were the first ones to make a popular product, that is much more accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The evil is unecessary
Apple being evil should shock Apple users as much if not more than the rest of us. It means that they are focusing on lawyers rather than engineers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, that was your original statement up above. Do you notice a trend? Someone makes a remark usually based on facts and evidence shooting down your comments, you then alter your comments to something else.
Either start off by saying something that is in line with the facts or don't say anything at all.
And no, the iPad was not the first tablet available with an acceptable price range for it's performance. There were others before that.
THE ONLY THING THE IPAD WAS FIRST IN (as far as tablets are concerned) WAS IN RAPID POPULAR ADOPTION BY THE GENERAL MASSES. That's it. It wasn't the first tablet. (Not even for the year.) It wasn't the first available at an acceptable cost. (Again, not even for that year.) And so on and so forth. The only first it achieved was in popularity. Nothing more and definitely nothing remarkable since.
Please, I know you like Apple products (that is readily apparent), stop with the misinformation and attempts to try and paint Apple's iProducts as the be all end all of consumer goods. Their "first" were anything but as history, and a quick search online, will readily show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their devices do look great though, Ill give them that, but using them makes me want to blow my brains out everytime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Copied Who?
And if you think a month is too soon for one firm to copy another, then how about the Samsung F700, announced just a month after the Iphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Copied Who? Prada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Copied Who?
Now for that wonderful place Wikipedia
LG Prada under iPhone Contraversy,
"LG later claimed that Apple stole both the ideas and concept of the Prada phone. A lawsuit by LG had been rumored prior to this announcement; [8] however, LG never followed through with it."
That being said, LG makes the Retina display for Apple.
Now when you get back to the ruling I will be happy to talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Copied Who?
You seem to have swallowed sink and hook son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Copied Who?
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone-1827.php
And by saying "capacitance" you sound like you are talking about the display where the iPhone too use a capacitance TFT.
Further up until March 2012 it seems, there was no haptic feedback different from others in the iPhone.
Quote:
http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-outlines-iphone-haptic-feedback-system-2221959 8/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Copied Who?
WTF? It does NOT! Haptic feedback (by use of the word feedback) requires a two way system of allowing the user to know they have initiated some type of action by the use of haptics (touch). It allows the perception of mechanical interactions/movement where there are none
Though Apple are working on haptic feedback devices, as everyone else has for over 50yrs (yes 50!) they definitely DO NOT use haptic feedback systems for the iPhone or any other current device they produce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who Copied Who?
Ever wonder why an iOS device with a touch screen will not work with a plastic stylus? There is your answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Copied Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fanboy fail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also feel that I must ask exactly how much porn you are trying to store on your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A nice way to describe you got to pay Apple top dollar cause you can't relace it yourself. Fanboy, indeed.
I might also want to mention that everyone immediately started copying the iPhone as soon as it came out, but I have a feeling I'd lose that debate horribly on here...
Obviously.
To be honest, if everyone blatantly copied my design like that and fucked up the simplicity at the core like that, I'd want to sue everyone too.
Lucky for Apple, Prada thinks differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does it really matter if I don't have to replace the battery?
As for that link, those people seem to act like Apple is the only company to ever do things like that. Apple is not the only company to ever misuse the patent system. Ever heard of the Bethesda Game Studios vs. Mojang AB case? Not only does that show that others make bullshit patent cases, but it also shows that we should really be mad at the lawyers instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And why is that? Cause you spend money on a new device and don't use the old one long enough? Does at least this behaviour qualify as fanboism?
That's your defense? Other people are jackasses too? Yeah, that makes me like Apple much more for abusing the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:battery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone
Just because the phones ended up looking alike doesn't mean a thing. It's called 'convergent evolution'. Sharks and dolphins look alike, but they are clearly different. The sharks aren't suing the dolphins over copying their design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fact, the iPhone has been in development since 2005 at least.
So what was your point about “everyone immediately started copying the iPhone”? Did you have something to back it up, or were you just spouting hot air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what? What about your previous statement
So when Apple does it, it's convergent evolution but when others do it, it's blatant copying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Too!
Apple getting ready to file an appeal on recent court ruling, Was overheard to say IS TOO! Ah..I mean Ahhh...never mind.
Just maybe the judge didn't want Apple to file an appeal...Just Sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have an idea, then do it right so nobody copies it.
The difference is not in the idea, but in the execution. As Thomas Edison said, anything worth achieving is 5% inspiration, and 95% perspiration.
In other words, let them copy your idea, because that alone will not be enough to successfully compete with you. To take away customers from you, they will actually have to execute on that idea to produce a superior product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you have an idea, then do it right so nobody copies it.
Or, as Nikola Tesla said in reference to Edison:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Patent dispute!
The judgment can be found here, for anyone interested: Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), the relevant paragraphs being 182 and 190: So Apple doesn't have a complete monopoly on rectangular hand-held computers with rounded corners - just cool ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Patent dispute!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Patent dispute!
Patents cover processes, design rights cover shapes (and designs), copyright covers expressions of ideas, trademarks cover brands, performance rights cover performances, and so on. They are all subtly (or not so subtly, in some cases) different.
Saying design rights are patents on designs seems like saying a physical right of access is like a patent on a footpath... also, I'm fairly certain I'm not your son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Patent dispute!
SOftware is already covered under copywrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aplle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aplle?
1. Take a magnifying glass to the screen with tiny text on it and count the pixels you don't see around the edges of the text.
2. You can jailbreak your iPad and do what you wish with it :-)
As for the size, reading from a portrait aspect ratio from an iPhone, 4th gen iPod Touch is like reading from a news paper column.
Double tap on a bit of text in a column, it zooms in to lake the text larger.
Yup, better display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aplle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aplle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool decision!
Thankfully in Europe you can't "patent" that, unlike the US patent office which often seems to be unable to make the distinction between a patent and an industrial design.
(And by the way that should be "Who copied WHOM.")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge 'cool' aaaahhhhhh
No youngster will ever go near one of these things ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge walks up to a table with two tablets. He looks at each, flips it over a couple of times, and decides that they are indeed not the same thing, and neither is a copyright infringement on the other. Why? Is the judge going to talk about "simplicity of design" or "the braun effect" or even "softer lineshapes"? No, because he's a judge and not an interior designer. He's going to say "This Apple one is different in a legally significant way. Why? I dunno....it just looks cooler".
Just because he didn't say it in Latin doesn't mean it's the wrong decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder where his confusion comes from? Most likely Apples lawyers, as it's pretty obvious that the Apple patent doesn't contain any actual invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uncool = cool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]