Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Aug 2011 17:27 UTC
Legal So, the shadiness factor of the German EU-wide injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 seems to continue. Not only has Apple been caught supplying the court with tampered evidence, it now seems the court in Duesseldorf didn't have the authority to ban the Galaxy Tab EU-wide - at least, according to a German court which has just lifted the EU-wide ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Order by: Score:
v Wow, guess I was wrong
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:00 UTC
RE: Wow, guess I was wrong
by JAlexoid on Tue 16th Aug 2011 21:39 UTC in reply to "Wow, guess I was wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Sorry for reading between the lines*, but... Why aren't German consumers - consumers?

* Nasty habit of having a family full of diplomats

Edited 2011-08-16 21:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow, guess I was wrong
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Aug 2011 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow, guess I was wrong"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Sorry for reading between the lines*, but... Why aren't German consumers - consumers?


n/m, the article summary does not make it clear that the ban still exists in Germany.

Edited 2011-08-16 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:07 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

EU-wide Ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1 [temporary] Lifted [except in Germany]

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think it's syntactically correct. The ban is not EU-wide anymore, and the court did not mention any intention to bring an EU-wide ban back, stating to the contrary that it was a mistake.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, the ban wasn't European wide anyway, The Netherlands were not included. As sales are still banned in Germany I don't think you can state the ban has been lifted from the entire EU.

It's like telling your dad you cleaned his car and he notices a dirty spot. Germany may not be dirty, but it's a pretty big spot on the European map.

Engaged reports it like this:

"German court lifts ban on some European Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales"

Does seem a rather different situation than Thom reported.

And for what it's worth I don't think Apple should try to ban the Galaxy tab sales.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I see your point, though in my opinion Engadget's title does not reflect well enough how much has changed ("some" is typically less than the majority in English, isn't it ?).

Maybe "German court lifts ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales outside of Germany" ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

To be honest, I don't agree with Engadget's line either, since the ban lifting is done in all but two EU countries, one which didn't even have the ban. "Almost all but two" and "some" do differ somewhat.

Your version does get my approval!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


It's like telling your dad you cleaned his car and he notices a dirty spot.

But in that example you would have cleaned his car. You just wouldn't have completely cleaned it. However it was still cleaner than it was before and thus you had cleaned it.

However I do agree with your point, just not the car analogy ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's compulsory to use cars as examples for some strange reason. :-)

But as Neil the Hippy noted: Okay, so most metaphors don't bear close examination

Edit, part of the script:

NEIL: Okay, guys. What do we need?
RICK: [putting on jacket] Neil, you know exactly what I need. Cause all my stuff is marked with sticky labels!

VYVYAN: Wait a minute! Is yours the stuff with the sticky labels with 'Rick' written on it?

RICK: Yes!

VYVYAN: [false compassion] Oh, sod it! I'm very sorry, Rick! I didn't know! I thought it was mine, and I've eaten it! Every last bit!

NEIL: Look, guys, I know exactly whose food is whose, right. Cause I do all the shopping around here. And I do all the cleaning. My function around here, I might as well be your mothers!

RICK: But Neil, we don't hate our mothers!

NEIL: Alright, so most metaphors don't bear close examination! Anyway, for example, [places a plate on the table] This glob of green mould on a saucer is Rick's.

Edited 2011-08-16 18:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Tue 16th Aug 2011 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It's compulsory to use cars as examples for some strange reason. :-)

hehehe does seem so

But as Neil the Hippy noted: Okay, so most metaphors don't bear close examination

Very true and kudos for The Young Ones reference - classic show ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I have seen every episode a few times (well, there aren't that many). A shame none feature a computer. Ehm, it wouldn't survive long anyway.

If you like this series you may also like "Bottom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_(TV_series)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Wed 17th Aug 2011 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm British so I've seen these shows anyway ;)


Not a fan of Bottom though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by JAlexoid on Tue 16th Aug 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If you want to be 100% precise, then:
"EU wide ban lifted off Samsung Korea, but still in place for Samsung Germany"

Reflects the fact that EU wide injunction is still in place for Samsung's German subsidiary. However any other EU based subsidiary is free to sell Galaxy Tab.

Edited 2011-08-16 21:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v import
by fran on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:38 UTC
RE: import
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 18:48 UTC in reply to "import "
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Congratulation, sir ! *hands a medal* Here's your Godwin award !

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: import
by fran on Tue 16th Aug 2011 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: import "
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Humble thanks I dedicate this to the memory of all (non Apple) square shape tablets in Germany..RIP

Reply Score: 3

Lolwut
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Aug 2011 19:36 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rma...

Yeah I'm talking about this thread so far.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Tue 16th Aug 2011 20:09 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Galaxy Tabs sales will now resume and sales will be stronger than spected thanks to Apple free publicity.

Reply Score: 8

Poor Apple
by OSGuy on Tue 16th Aug 2011 22:01 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Just what were they thinking? Apple accused of doctoring image to sink Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image...

Or perhaps I should say, were they even thinking? Did they really think nobody will notice?

Edited 2011-08-16 22:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

v Apple Anti-Competitive?
by Geronimo72 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 07:14 UTC
RE: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 10:23 UTC in reply to "Apple Anti-Competitive?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

There is no doubt Samsung copied Apple's design, nor what Samsung motivated to build tablets (it wasn't the 1994 Knight Rider).

The Google people on this site say it's good for innovation if companies copy each other.

In part I agree.

Samsung saw Apple's iPad took off and they wanted their share and made their own tablet. That's fine with me and good for competition, customer choice.

Now Apple claims they copied the iPad, like its shape. I think it's kinda hard to make a tablet that doesn't look like a tablet. I don't you should view it as a tablet, but as a screen, which there are a lot of. Touching it with your fingers, making gestures should be fine too, it's the most logical way of interacting, like a pen also would be (but not as convenient when it comes to multi gestures).

Where I think Samsung went too far is when it made a number of icons look like iOS ones and even copied the packaging. There is no need for that, unless you want customers to think a Galaxy Tab is an iPad too.

IMO Apple should have asked the judge to force Samsung to change the icons and packaging. No need for an import ban or any fines.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by Jaktar on Wed 17th Aug 2011 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
Jaktar Member since:
2011-06-03

If we just take into account that it has a screen that you can interact with, then every Palm Pilot and Windows Mobile device for the last decade are prior art that invalidate all the Apple's designs.

I'd like to compare their design claims with Tenacious D's "One note song" skit.

JB: Just play this note.

(Plays)

JB: Then we both, just keep both playing that note. Every once in a while bend it. And that's it and just remember who wrote that song - ME, baby, ME.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by Geronimo72 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's wrong if consumers have a hard time to identify what it is, but it's hard to make a tablet computer that hasn't a rectangular screen. If it's black and rectangular most stuff will look like an iPad to some people. But hey, most VCR's were black flat boxes.

I think the UI and its icons are more an area where it shouldn't be alright to copy stuff, like Samsung did. This would make a lot of people believe it's an iPad.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by tupp on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

There is no doubt Samsung copied Apple's design, nor what Samsung motivated to build tablets (it wasn't the 1994 Knight Rider).

That's correct! Apple invented the touchscreen device with rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, and it has the exclusive right to make tablets!

Why just look at this early Ipad concept: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

SEE! Apple had already invented the black shiny bezel long before they announced..., er, uh... Oh. Sorry, but it appears that the link actually shows a CrunchPad prototype from six months before the Ipad was first announced. My bad...

Alright, then consider this early Iphone prototype!: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol...

There you go! Apple was showing the rounded, flush, black bezel long before they... Um... sorry again. It seems that the device shown in the link is actually an LG Prada phone, which was winning design awards four months before the Iphone was announced.

Okay. Well, Apple certainly invented an array of icons on a touchscreen device. Here's a very early Apple concept for such an icon array: http://mobile.osnews.com/img/6146/palmos1.png

Gotcha! Sorry Android fanboys! This icon array is an exclusive Apple concept! We are the superior... crap... Evidently, this image is a screenshot of Palm OS (from a touchscreen phone), which has been around for about a decade prior to the Iphone.

Nevermind.
/sarcasm

Apple fanboys! How can you think with a straight face that Apple has any exclusive rights to a touchscreen device with a rounded, shiny black, flush bezel? Such a device was demonstrated in a video in 1994. I'll spell-out the date just in case the bolded number didn't make it through the fog of the RDF -- nineteen ninety-four!

And you think that adding an array of icons makes an Iphone/Ipad unique?

Really.

Samsung's motivation is immaterial -- Apple did not invent touchscreen devices with an icon array and a flush, shiny black bezel with rounded corners.


The Google people on this site say it's good for innovation if companies copy each other.

There's no such thing as "Google people." The only folks who invest their identity and emotion into a product to such a psycho degree are the Apple fanboys. The arguments here are often simply "Apple Fanboys vs. 'those with common sense.'"


Where I think Samsung went too far is when it made a number of icons look like iOS ones and even copied the packaging. There is no need for that, unless you want customers to think a Galaxy Tab is an iPad too.

The "look" of icons is often very subjective. For the sake of this discussion, it's not even worth comparing the two sets of icons. If push came to shove, Samsung could just use other icons and its product would function just as well.

The packaging? It's okay for Samsung to use a box, right? Do they have the right to use a white box?

Really.

Edited 2011-08-17 18:01 UTC

Reply Score: 10

v RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by Neolander on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I find it disturbing that posts like that can get positive votes.

Got nothing against the content, pretty much agree with it in fact, but the form is extremely aggressive and flamewar-inducing, which is IIRC the exact definition of a troll.

How do you expect someone to react to that, exactly ? Through calm and civilized discussion ? Or do you think that your point of view is so superior that it will shut all mouths ?

Edited 2011-08-17 20:39 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

He was replying to me, I think, but he is indeed overly agressive and twisting my words. It's so weird I don't even bother putting it all straight.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by melkor on Thu 18th Aug 2011 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Aww, poor diddums. Did someone rain on your parade and shoot your argument(s) down with some good old fashioned common sense and evidence? tsk tsk, how dare they!

The OP that you bitched about gets my vote because he pretty much says it as it is, with none of the mindless, inane, dronish babble that the current Apple fans present.

You are most welcome to call me a troll. I couldn't care less. I'm more concerned with the truth, and real competition in the market, and stopping legal bullies like Apple from abusing the law and monopolising the market.

Dave

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Thu 18th Aug 2011 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I'll say one thing, I didn't object at all to the Samsung's shape, so why go on a rant against me about the shape?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by tupp on Thu 18th Aug 2011 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

There is no doubt Samsung copied Apple's design...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by MOS6510 on Thu 18th Aug 2011 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Correct, but I don't object to rectangular black shapes.

If Appel releases the iPad, after which several companies start their own tablet projects and one comes up with a design that looks a lot like the iPad, copies icons and even the design of the box how can you not state that they used the iPad as inspiration? They didn't come with a tablet after the Knight Rider or after Microsoft's tablets (well, perhaps they did, but I probably didn't look like an iPad nor did it sell very well).

Now I don't mind the shape that much. We can all agree it's hard to design a tablet that hasn't got a tablet shape en black isn't a very unusual color either for an electronic device.

Mimicking the box is just an attempt to mislead customers. And copying icons is also not necessary as it's easy to come up with your our icon set.

If you all add this up I can imagine Apple objects to it. I just don't think stuff should be banned for this, unless Samsung also sticks an Apple logo on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by melkor on Thu 18th Aug 2011 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Anti-Competitive?"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Amen, you hit the nail right on the head.

The sad fact, and I've said it on osnews many years ago, is that Apple fanboys are the worst amongst the bunch. They will defend Apple to the death, and bad mouth anyone who dares criticise Apple or stand up to their legal bullying.

Go google! Go Samsung. Kick the shit out of Apple in the courts.

Dave

PS this sort of BS that Apple is doing is EXACTLY why I believe software patents, and indeed all patents, should be bloody well banned. They encourage monopolisation of the market, and are directly anti competitive in nature, and they stifle innovation and consumer markets. The sooner they are banned globally, the better for all consumders, for all businesses.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple Anti-Competitive?
by dragossh on Wed 17th Aug 2011 19:42 UTC in reply to "Apple Anti-Competitive?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

IP theft

So rows of icons and shiny rounded tablets are Apple's unique ideas? You sure they haven't been done 10 years earlier, by, say, Palm or Microsoft?

And I don't want to rant about how idiotic the notion of owning ideas is.

Reply Score: 4

Erm
by Ninjawidget on Thu 18th Aug 2011 11:01 UTC
Ninjawidget
Member since:
2011-08-18

I'm not sure I understand. So the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablet I bought recently in England wasn't a permitted purchase? Perhaps because the UK is not part of the EU we can do what we like rather than have the fourth reich tell us what to do?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Erm
by nej_simon on Thu 18th Aug 2011 11:20 UTC in reply to "Erm"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

I'm not sure I understand. So the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablet I bought recently in England wasn't a permitted purchase? Perhaps because the UK is not part of the EU we can do what we like rather than have the fourth reich tell us what to do?


It was just an import ban, devices that had already been imported could still be sold. (And the UK is a part of the EU btw.)

Reply Score: 2

@Thom: check this out!
by ml2mst on Thu 18th Aug 2011 13:08 UTC
ml2mst
Member since:
2005-08-27

Apple has gone totally insane now:

http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107630/apple--gehele-galaxy-lijn-moet-ui...

Yawn :-p

Reply Score: 1

When you can't compete. . .
by cycloneous on Thu 18th Aug 2011 13:33 UTC
cycloneous
Member since:
2006-01-11

When you can't compete, litigate!

That sounds like the normal modus operandi of these companies.

Reply Score: 1